Video: attack on cyclist - Is this you? Essex Police want to hear from you

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

I've noticed a strange pattern on cycling forums when someone posts about an altercation. After a certain number of replies offering support someone will pop along to describe why it was the cyclist's fault all along. Occasionally it's valid, but mostly it seems to be a case of an individual getting a kick out of opposing the popular view.

In this case there are a few points one could make to the cyclist about how he might have avoided the altercation, but nothing at all to suggest he was responsible for being run off the road and then punched by Jason Statham's less successful little brother.

I think what has happened is that with the growth of cycling in recent years large numbers of motorists have begun dressing up as cyclists and attempting to ride bicycles once in a while in order to pass themselves off as cyclists. Once these interlopers are in position they proceed to push ideas such as segregated paths with the pretext that they are safer. They may be so but the real motive is simply to oust cyclists from the roads.

gazpacho wrote:

Wonder how much they charge for 'decking'?

FOC.

Compliments of.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

If there is any punishment to be handed out it should be done by the proper authorities. Not by an angry mob of knuckle-dragging cyclists.

Yeah, i agree - it *should*. But the pisser is that they're not doing anything - not even opening an investigation - unless the cyclist comes forward, which he obviously isn't going to do.

Kadinkski wrote:

LinusLarrabee wrote:

If there is any punishment to be handed out it should be done by the proper authorities. Not by an angry mob of knuckle-dragging cyclists.

Yeah, i agree - it *should*. But the pisser is that they're not doing anything - not even opening an investigation - unless the cyclist comes forward, which he obviously isn't going to do.

If the cyclist isn't coming forward and has decided to let it drop (although it's NOT clear that is actually the case) then there's no reason for the rabblement to reach for their pitchforks.

The driver's actions are clearly wrong and I believe it should be dealt with appropriately and with the right level of action. Attempting to get the driver sacked is way beyond that and doesn't serve anybody well - least of all the tax-payer who'll have to fork out the welfare. Most of the posters here are clearly out for revenge. Whatever is done to this drive won't act as a deterrent to anybody else. And attempting to deliberately damage the business, which may well have other innocent employees, is also an inappropriate response.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

The driver's actions are clearly wrong and I believe it should be dealt with appropriately and with the right level of action. Attempting to get the driver sacked is way beyond that and doesn't serve anybody well - least of all the tax-payer who'll have to fork out the welfare. Most of the posters here are clearly out for revenge. Whatever is done to this drive won't act as a deterrent to anybody else. And attempting to deliberately damage the business, which may well have other innocent employees, is also an inappropriate response.

I disagree with most of your paragraph LinusLarrabee, if he gets sacked then his post will be filled with the next in line, who might well be coming off benefits, it all balances out; and if I were his employer I would prefer someone not proven to be a liability. As for it being a deterrent, if just one person who hears of his (hopeful) prosecution thinks twice before overtaking on zig-zags as he did, using the phone while driving or assaulting someone then that is a result. The Police should pick up the phone and invite this man into the station to ask him to explain his lack of adherence to the laws of the land. Well done to the victim for filming this, there is no shame in coming forward. The sooner that all drivers think there is a possibility they are being filmed on the road, the better.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

Kadinkski wrote:

LinusLarrabee wrote:

If there is any punishment to be handed out it should be done by the proper authorities. Not by an angry mob of knuckle-dragging cyclists.

Yeah, i agree - it *should*. But the pisser is that they're not doing anything - not even opening an investigation - unless the cyclist comes forward, which he obviously isn't going to do.

If the cyclist isn't coming forward and has decided to let it drop (although it's NOT clear that is actually the case) then there's no reason for the rabblement to reach for their pitchforks.

The driver's actions are clearly wrong and I believe it should be dealt with appropriately and with the right level of action. Attempting to get the driver sacked is way beyond that and doesn't serve anybody well - least of all the tax-payer who'll have to fork out the welfare. Most of the posters here are clearly out for revenge. Whatever is done to this drive won't act as a deterrent to anybody else. And attempting to deliberately damage the business, which may well have other innocent employees, is also an inappropriate response.

Why is it excessive for a person who commits a criminal act in the course of their employment to lose that employment?

bendertherobot wrote:

Why is it excessive for a person who commits a criminal act in the course of their employment to lose that employment?

On it's own, I don't think it is excessive and I think we both agree that it's appropriate for the driver to be punished for his actions and that the punishment should reflect the seriousness of his crime. But just how many punishments do you think are appropriate? 1,2,3,4, unlimited? This is why we have a legal system - to stop the angry rabblement taking the law in to their own hands.

When combined with a potential arrest, imprisonment, fine, points on licence, telephone and email harassment, the embarrassment of having his face plastered all over the national press, potential bullying of his children, potentially losing his home when he can't make the mortgage payments, lost business to his employer and the knock-on effects of that - to name but a few, the punishment becomes excessive. I'm sure some moron will spout the "he should have thought about that before he committed his crime" line, but that's not how human brains work. He failed to contain his inner-chimp and now you people are doing the same in response to watching an online video. I'm sure there are people here on this website who'd advocate giving him a beating and would do it themselves if they met him - which makes them no better that he is. I realise that's not a popular view, but then not all cyclists are the knuckle-dragging moronic type that are easily lead by public opinion, so I don't really care to be honest.

LinusLarrabee wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Why is it excessive for a person who commits a criminal act in the course of their employment to lose that employment?

On it's own, I don't think it is excessive and I think we both agree that it's appropriate for the driver to be punished for his actions and that the punishment should reflect the seriousness of his crime. But just how many punishments do you think are appropriate? 1,2,3,4, unlimited? This is why we have a legal system - to stop the angry rabblement taking the law in to their own hands.

When combined with a potential arrest, imprisonment, fine, points on licence, telephone and email harassment, the embarrassment of having his face plastered all over the national press, potential bullying of his children, potentially losing his home when he can't make the mortgage payments, lost business to his employer and the knock-on effects of that - to name but a few, the punishment becomes excessive. I'm sure some moron will spout the "he should have thought about that before he committed his crime" line, but that's not how human brains work. He failed to contain his inner-chimp and now you people are doing the same in response to watching an online video. I'm sure there are people here on this website who'd advocate giving him a beating and would do it themselves if they met him - which makes them no better that he is. I realise that's not a popular view, but then not all cyclists are the knuckle-dragging moronic type that are easily lead by public opinion, so I don't really care to be honest.

Punishments in such circumstances will always be plural. Why? Because there will be both civil and criminal consequences.

You agree that it's quite proper that an assault in the course of one's employment will see that employment terminated. You seem to struggle with the plularity of punishment. But, of course, there must be. If he's charged, and convicted, then clearly he must be punished. It's likely that there will be multiple punishments in relation to each charge. One of those may be a driving ban. If he's not already been sacked because of his behaviour (it's clearly gross misconduct) then that's simply going to add to his issues. If he owns this company, then he may be lucky. If he's an employee it's highly unlikely an employer would put up with this.

The rest? The loss of wages, mortgage etc. Those are consequences which flow naturally from such a punishment. There's nothing really unusual about that.

Do I advocate burning his house down? Of course not. Bullying his kids. Well, no.

Do I agree that after due process, if he's convicted, losing his job and a conviction is proportionate. Yes.

Now, if that makes me a moron, if that makes me you people, fine.

Airzound wrote:

If this guy has done that to me I would have decked him in SELF DEFENCE.

Why haven't the police arrested the driver and side kick? It's not as if they don't have enough evidence ………..

Offences this thug have has committed - assault, threatening behaviour, pubic order offences, breach of the peace, driving whilst using his mobile phone, dangerous driving. The footage is pretty damning.

What are the police waiting for? They should have already arrested him on suspicion of so many offences. Or are the cops where this happened anti-cycling as well?

Even easier to identify if he is a sole trader with his name plastered on the van .

Ramuz wrote:

This is now going to be on local BBC Essex tomorrow morning and has already made the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2912039/Shocking-moment-cyclist-...).

Aarrgghh.. #donotreadthecomments

Not that it's really the point but was the driver or the rider who was on the phone? The Mail says the latter but we've all assumed it's the former. I can't tell from the vid.

Agreed, we need to make a stand on this. Its becoming the norm for people to think they own the roads.

So much for the Wiggo effect, in my Town (Worthing), its become ridiculous with the way we`re treated.