A video shows the shocking moment a passenger climbs out through the window of a moving car in a bid to push over a cyclist.
The clip was caught on a dashcam as Daniel Tereszczuk, 34, and his nine-year-old son drove through Tyldesley, near Wigan.
Couldn’t believe what I was seeing”: Passenger climbs out of a moving car in a bid to push over a cyclist, the clip was caught on a dashcam as Daniel Tereszczuk, 34, and his nine-year-old son drove through Tyldesley, near Wigan…..https://t.co/PkDH4isvKG pic.twitter.com/rPR08sNo7Z
— Eamon Goan (@Edamondo) June 25, 2021
The passenger in the back seat of a Volkswagen Golf driving in front of the pair can be seen climbing out the window and attempting to push a cyclist in a hi-vis jacket off his bike.
Although the cyclist avoids falling and doesn’t appear fazed by the shocking move, stay at home dad, Daniel, said he was left stunned.
He said: “I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.
“I had my son in the car with me and he was in complete shock too.
“Even he knows how stupid doing something like that is.
“I was trying to see what the driver’s reaction was by looking in the wing mirror but I think he was completely oblivious.
“He didn’t seem to know or care.”
48 thoughts on “Passenger filmed climbing out of a moving car and trying to push cyclist”
“Two sides to every story. As
“Two sides to every story. As usual only one published. “
“It the police in the car. Keeping cyclist off our role is what we pay tax for cars rules the roads” [translation required]
And swldxer seems to be his
And our friend swldxer seems to be his usual corrective self in the comments too…
I’m still wondering what the
I’m still wondering what the other side of the story is and how this works with other crimes : when someone is burgled, robbed, has their car stolen etc
hirsute wrote:
Clearly you shouldn’t buy stuff people might want to steal …
That’s Wigan for you. Full of
That’s Wigan for you. Full of retards. Wigan and many of the towns surrounding it, is one of those places you can walk up to anyone and smack them in the face safe in the knowledge they’d have deserved it at some point.
The police are feckless and lazy, the doctors are halfway through writing a sick note for you as you walk through the door and it’s full of the toothless, short-gaited substance abusers pushing prams.
I avoid riding through any town centre round there because they are all death traps for cyclists.
But you can buy a pie barm,
But you can buy a pie barm, so it’s not all bad.
What time is it when there’s
What time is it when there’s a meat pie on the clock in Wigan?
Summat to eight.
Have you ever cycled down New
Have you ever cycled down New Hall Lane in Preston? It makes Wigan look like Mayfair in London.
Can you please not use the ‘R
Can you please not use the ‘R’ word – it is extremely offensive.
Bloody stupid behaviour for
Bloody stupid behaviour for sure but looks more like a shout and gesture effort than a serious attempt to push the rider off?
I dunno, you don’t need to
I dunno, you don’t need to lean out of the vehicle like that just to yell some abuse and gesticulate. I think they were intending to make physical contact with the rider.
Considering the driver was
Considering the driver was actually moving away from the cyclist, rather than towards him, I don’t think there was any intention to knock the cyclist off his bike. That being said the passenger was absolutely bang out of order.
Then again the cyclist doesn’t even flinch, keeps his line, no wobbles, nothing.
Nope, as someone who has been
Nope, as someone who has been in a very similar situation, the attempt to be pushed off is there from the passenger. Either the driver misjudged the gap (as happened to me as he was complicit) or he was not an actual arse like his passenger was.
Cyclists reaction has nothing to do with it really as it was over and done before he knew. In fact if it was a “shout”, he might have reacted more to it as it would have been an unexpected noise.
If we want to start throwing
If we want to start throwing about anecdotal evidence to back up our arguments I can do that all day.
While not condoning the actions of the driver and passenger I can’t see this misjudgement of the gap. The driver was definitely moving away from the cyclist before the passenger got out of the window. Surely if your intentions are to push someone off in collusion with your passenger, you would move towards them, wouldn’t you?
Which is why I also stated
Which is why I also stated “Either the driver misjudged the gap (as happened to me as he was complicit) or he was not an actual arse like his passenger was.”
The reason I know the driver was complicit in mine was they got close and slowed down (20ish in a 40) which is why I glanced over and saw the passenger doing very similar to the above except he had a mobile phone in one hand.
Your reply to Hoarseman originally was there was probably no intent simply because the driver wasn’t close enough, I’m just adding that the drivers intention and the passengers are two different things.
well my anecdata on this kind
well my anecdata on this kind of thing is driver and passenger are usually not very skilled at what they are attempting, in fact they are more a danger to themselves as often being unable to calculate speed, distance or angles at the same time correctly.
it wouldnt surprise me in the least the videos you see when they do push the cyclist, are actually the result of multiple attempts and failures beforehand
Owd Big ‘Ead wrote:
Perhaps, but the overtake was not exactly 163 either, and the driver continued to drive whilst the passenger was not securely in their seat.
The cyclist is obvs nailz. That doesn’t make the passenger (and, in my view, the driver) any less of a pair of twunts.
Apparently if the passenger
Apparently if the passenger is an adult, it is their own responsibility for a seatbelt and not the driver.
(and the filming car was not exactly 163 either).
Rendel Harris wrote:
Or an aggravated attempt to threaten and intimidate?
It’s really hard to tell the
It’s really hard to tell the intention of the passenger in the video but it’s likely to be poorly motivated given the way he leans out of the window – no point really speculating and no prosecutable offence was committed, so it’s a bit of a pointless story.
whatever the intent of
whatever the intent of passenger or driver, and we can agree to disagree on that aspect as we all have our own views on it, I dont think its a pointless story.
to me it highlights a microcosm of the kind of stuff cyclists on UK roads have to deal with or put up with on a daily basis.
when I go to the supermarket,go for a walk in the park or any activity that doesnt directly involve riding a bike, I dont experience people trying to deliberately hurt me, shout abuse at me, spit at me, yet these are all things Ive experienced for just riding a bike this year alone.
why ? what is it about riding a bike that makes people behave like that towards you or the people in the car in this video behave the way they did to this cyclist, what they intended to do is irrelevant ultimately, they are just conforming to a type and are engaging in oafish behaviour that says its ok to treat a cyclist like this, to do this stuff to us, because the general public dont care about cyclists or choose to call people treating cyclists badly out for it, or challenge them on it, or say no actually thats completely wrong.
It’s because all other forms
It’s because all other forms of hatred and abuse targetted based on appearance, belief, genetic differences etc. are illegal and pursued by the police even if its just a hint of hatred in a social forum. These c&&ts have an outlet for their prejudice nature because encouraging or acting out hatred or abuse at cyclists is not illegal unless you physically injure one. And even then its often referred to as an accident between the victim and the weapon. Cyclists are a stereotype that people like Clarkson and Liddle etc. are allowed to encourage as a target for hatred. It’s time the law was changed so that it doesnt require a list of of the stereotypes that are illegal to hate, encouraging hatred and violence towards any stereotype or individual should be treated with the same legal process. In that way Clarkson, Liddle and many other media persons would find themselves in jail instead of applauded.
Inadequate and/or insecure
Inadequate and/or insecure people will always need someone to hate.
Muddy Ford wrote:
Muddy, I know where you’re coming from but sadly the proportion of these abusive posts pursued by police is best measured in parts per million. Cyclists are not a unique out-group, hatred (or “look at me, aren’t I transgressive and brave?”) is sadly everywhere.
Too many people get their kicks from antisocial behaviour, on and off line.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
“Threatening behaviour or intending to cause fear…[causing someone to believe] immediate unlawful violence will be used against them” is a prosecutable offence under Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986; it’s one of the most common charges brought by the police and this would fall well within its scope.
I thought you weren’t
I thought you weren’t responding to the resident wum .
Sorry, slipped. Difficult to
Sorry, slipped. Difficult to resist the temptation to correct total ignorance and stupidity.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
You really are just a brain dead troll aren’t you?
Your comment is the equvalent of someone standing in front of a judge and saying “Yes I took a swing at the persons head with a baseball bat meaning to cause them harm, but because I missed you can’t prosecute me”
No point in speculating….. no because there is no speculation needed. They climbed out of the window with the sole intention of trying to push the cylist over. The reason there is no speculation on this is because the passenger remained in the car before the incident, they actively reached to try and strike the cyclist then immediately after they passed the cyclist they climbed back in the car.
Rubbish, you can’t infer that
Rubbish, you can’t infer that at all, but I’m sorry if you feel upset by the presence of someone with a different opinion to you.
He is far more likely (in my view) to have been trying to scare the cyclist and/or shout abuse at them. And while this is the likeliest scenario, I don’t think there would be sufficient evidence to prove this beyond reasonable doubt. For example, in a court of law the passenger could claim he was merely imitating the crowds at the Tour de France by saying “allez allez allez!” in encouragement as they drove past.
If he and the driver had wanted to push over the cyclist, he’d have pushed over the cyclist – it wouldn’t exactly be a difficult feat would it?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Respectfully, he can infer what he likes.
As for whether a prosecution would fly in court, it depends on what the proxy for a reasonable person (a bench or a jury) decides is proven and to what extent. To offer your Freeman approach, is an “allez” explanation credible in the circumstances? And would a reasonable person regard it as anything but an attempt to cause fear, or an act that was reckless to the possibility of causing fear?
Quite possibly, the jury would be convinced of the passenger’s complete upright standing in the community. That’s part of the battle we still have.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
So far more likely to be wanting to “scare the cyclist”? so you have just admitted that you think the passenger has commited a section 4 public order offence despite the fact that you stated quite clearly that you didn’t think there was an offence committed?
Not only that, the nature of the three point seatbelt in a car would mean that the passenger would have had to unclip their seatbelt to get to the position that they got to to try and attack the cyclist means they have also committed a road traffic act.
Ok then, to put it beyond reasonable doubt for you….. There is no justifiable reason for the passenger of the vehicle to lean out of their vehicle to shout “allez allez allez” in encouragment because they can shout that with their seatbelt on and their window rolled down without attempting to strike the cyclist.
But yes your opinion would most likely be prevalent in a Jury because more jurors would be car drivers as opposed to cyclists and as such they could put themselves in the position of the people in the car and come up with any reason, just like you have, to not hold the people in the car accountable for their actions. And this is why there will never be any change in drivers attitudes because the courts will not convict
Yes, I think on balance that
Yes, I think on balance that the passenger has committed an offence (of course I’m not “admitting” anything, as my opinion hasn’t changed). However, I don’t believe they would be convicted on it in a court of law, as I don’t think there is enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that was their intention. And I certainly don’t think there is enough evidence to reach to conclusion that the passenger was trying to push the cyclist off his bike. I don’t know the laws around seatbelts and if the passenger can be fined for that offence, as they aren’t identifiable and I don’t know if the driver is compelled to say who the passenger was.
Nothing to do with car drivers vs cyclists – it’s just a logical conclusion looking unemotionally at the facts at hand. And as everyone here knows I’m a keen cyclist myself. Such a keen cyclist I got accused of “virtue signalling” last time I posted a ride.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Emotion has absolutely nothing to do with my arguments and it is nothing to do with motorists vs cyclists. I would have exactly the same response if it was a pedestrian/motorcyclist on the receiving end of the same action.
As for intent. I will go back to my baseball bat analogy. If someone was to be caught of film swinging a baseball bat at someones head and missing. And that made its way to court would you still be saying that it would be impossible for anyone to prove intent? That the jury would just believe the accused who said….. I was just practicing my swing and their head was just close to where I happened to swing the bat? or I was never intending to hit them?
The fact is all of the actions of the passenger are predisposed to it being a deliberate act against the cyclist with intent as opposed to there not being acutal intent for the passenger to try and harm the cyclist. and the facts are :-
– the passenger rolled down their window and leaned out to around waist level on the direct approach to another road user
– the passenger took a swing at the other road user and missed
– the passenger then climbed back in the car after passing the other road user.
Any reasonable person in possession of those 3 facts would come to the conclusion, beyond reasonable doubt that the ONLY reason for those 3 actions was an intent to cause harm to the other road user.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
If going from “It’s really hard to tell the intention of the passenger in the video but it’s likely to be poorly motivated given the way he leans out of the window – no point really speculating and no prosecutable offence was committed, so it’s a bit of a pointless story.” to…. “Yes on balance I think the passenger has committed an offence” is not a change in your opinion then I don’t know what is.
The fact that you don’t think there is sufficient evidence to prosecute does not change the fact that any offence is a prosecutable offence
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I not so sure… last article I saw where a passenger killed a cyclist by push her off her bike from a moving car, he managed to kill himself too.
This is exactly why the
This is exactly why the driver and passenger need to be questioned about their intent and then prosecuted so that they can explain their intent in open court.
Maybe there is a perfectly reasonable explanation involving the capture of a golden snitch in the quidditch, or whatever it is European team games are going on at the moment, and the cyclist was actually a pitch invader.
I’m hoping the number plate
I’m hoping the number plate is obscured because this has been reported to the police and they are actively pursuing the perpetrators, and there will be rather more than a warning letter as a result. Please don’t tell me that they aren’t doing anything because no-one was injured; they will be next time.
It’s “fazed” and DOOR mirror.
It’s “fazed” and DOOR mirror.
For the pedantry I’ll give
For the pedantry I’ll give you the fazed.
Meanwhile, “wing mirror’ was a quote from the cammer. So unless you want road.cc to change people’s statements you’ll just need to suck it up. The only way round it would be to use (Sic).
This should be your pedantic approach to the use of ‘wing mirror’. Not the use of a noun which the world and its granny recognises and accepts ( bar your good self). But the poor grammatical practice in the article.
Now that’s what I call pedantry!
Glad to hear the new Skoda
Glad to hear the new Skoda advert on LBC, when describing a car’s features, states that it has “electrically heated door mirrors”. At least some people are moving into the 21st century.
swldxer wrote:
I think you’ll find that it’s Škoda – the Š is a different letter and is pronounced ‘shh’.
We live in the United Kingdom
We live in the United Kingdom, and as such swldxer is correct. You would be correct if we were posting in Czechia.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
ŠKODA UK disagree with you.
Which they also say in the
Which they also say in the advert.
I’m now more concerned about
I’m now more concerned about your listening to LBC than I am about your pedantry regarding wing/door mirrors.
Only James O’Brien.
Only James O’Brien.
It’s a shame they didn’t fall
It’s a shame they didn’t fall out of the car, under the buses wheels.
Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror, Wing Mirror.
?
This needs to be reported to
This needs to be reported to the police, as it could have very easily resulted in a death.