The father of a motorist involved in a road rage incident in London last week has raised concerns that bike locks can be “turned into weapons”, after footage was posted online of a cyclist appearing to use his lock to smash a car windscreen, before swinging it towards the driver, during a heated confrontation.
The incident, which has been reported to the Met Police, took place on Rotherhithe Street, near Elephant and Castle tube station in south London, on Friday 21 March at around 4.25pm.
In a short clip, filmed by an onlooker and posted by the driver’s father, David Ross, to social media, the cyclist can be seen wielding a bike lock above his head as the motorist makes his way around the vehicle and the cyclist’s bike, which can be seen lying on the road.
The cyclist then proceeds to hit the car’s rear windscreen with the lock, appearing to smash it, before attempting to hit the driver, 26-year-old Regan Ross, using the lock.
Onlookers can also be heard shouting for him to “stop”, asking him “what are you doing?”, while at the end of the video the motorist can be seen approaching a member of the public, appearing to ask them if they had captured the incident on their phone.
Any retweets to help @metpoliceuk find this dangerous man who attacked my son and his car with his bike lock would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. The incident took place last night at Elephant & Castle. pic.twitter.com/Wkh9q6bGwj
— David Ross (@davidross72) March 22, 2025
Due to the edited nature of the clip, it is unclear what caused the incident, but the driver’s father David has claimed that the cyclist “must have gone into the back” of his son’s car, a collision he says was captured on a bus driver’s dashcam.
“He was commuting home and as he pulled up to stop, the cyclist, who I presume obviously didn’t see him, must have gone into the back of him. The bus driver saw that happen and has the dashcam footage,” Mr Ross told the Standard.
“The man then goes into the side of my son’s car and says, ‘what’s going on?’ He has a bit of road rage on him at the moment and then he starts having a go at my son and the rest you can see on the video. He starts smashing the windscreen.”
Mr Ross also told the newspaper that he is “bloody furious” about the cyclist’s actions, raising concerns about the potential for bike locks to be used as weapons in similar road rage incidents.
“I’m concerned that people can carry these things and turn it into a weapon,” he said.
“My son’s lived in London since he was 18, so he’s got used to the daily grind but we as parents are bloody furious, but he’s made of tough stuff. He’s more upset about not currently having a car.”
He added that he handed the footage to the Metropolitan Police, who say they are aware of the incident.
“Police were called to an altercation between a driver and a cyclist on the junction of Newington Butts and Walworth road, Elephant and Castle at 16:25hrs on Friday, 21 March,” a Met spokesperson said.
“It is reported a cyclist hit the driver’s car from behind, and then proceeded to remove a bike tool from his bike and smash the car windscreen.
“We are aware of reports circulating of the altercation. We remain in contact with the victim.
“Anyone who witnessed the incident, or has any information or footage is asked to call 101 or post on X @MetCC quoting CAD 3618/22Mar.”
> Police make arrest after sickening footage of cyclist slammed to ground by driver goes viral
While the Met are yet to take any action regarding last week’s altercation at Elephant and Castle, last September we reported that, in the wake of a similar viral road rage incident, a 37-year-old man was arrested in Edinburgh, after a video shared to social media showed the moment a cyclist was thrown to the ground by a driver who slammed the victim’s head against the road.
The video, which has been viewed more than 27 million times, shows a cyclist stood in front of a vehicle as its passenger remonstrates with him in Edinburgh’s Old Town.
A male driver is then seen getting out of the vehicle, before walking up to the cyclist and grabbing both hands around his neck before slamming the rider off his bike and hitting his head against the road. Afterwards, the passenger and driver returned to the vehicle, which had a learner plate in the front windscreen, while the cyclist was seen holding his head and lying motionless in the road.
Police Scotland later confirmed that a 37-year-old man had been “arrested and charged with the alleged assault of a 34-year-old male cyclist”.
77 thoughts on “Cyclist accused of smashing car windscreen with bike lock, “turning it into a weapon”, in alleged road rage clash with driver”
Quote:
I’m concerned that people can drive two-ton lumps of metal around and turn them into weapons but no sign that that’s stopping any time soon. Not condoning any violence but also not making any judgements until the full facts are known, perfectly possible that the driver deliberately brake checked the cyclist or otherwise caused the collision, despite the compelling evidence provided by…um… the driver’s dad who wasn’t there…
Has he considered that pretty
Has he considered that pretty much anything that can be picked up can be turned into a weapon?
I’d love to know why the dad is talking to the media, saying what “must” have happened, rather than the person involved…
brooksby wrote:
Plausible deniability. He can assert all sorts of things that definitely, obviously, maybe could have happened; without having to make it as convincing as the person there would have to be about it, and without being held accountable for what he said.
But it absolutely definitely might have happened along the lines of what he said; so it can’t be his son’s fault. Obviously.
I know I wouldn’t half be
I know I wouldn’t half be getting a ribbing off my mates if I let my old man do the talking for me like that! I half expected to see him saying, “Now my son says he didn’t do anything wrong, and if there’s one thing my son doesn’t do, he doesn’t tell lies…”
Swiss Tony wrote:
Well the alternative is going
Well the alternative is going to the law and putting it in the hands of your solicitor (but will it stand up in court? etc.)
brooksby wrote:
Yes, there’s something fishy about this. How come the dad was there? How did he have his phone ready to capture the key moment? Why hasn’t he shown what led to the cyclist wielding the lock? Looks like a new BMW too, can the lad afford the insurance?
Dad wasn’t there, that’s what
Dad wasn’t there, that’s what’s so hilarious about him telling everybody what must’ve happened; the clip was filmed by an onlooker and shared on social media by dad but he didn’t witness it, everything he says is just his speculation.
Rendel Harris wrote:
And it would appear that the person filming only started doing so once the cyclist and the motorist started doing a Benny Hill around the car, which means there’s no actual footage of What Actually Happened.
Sure, it could have been that the cyclist wasn’t paying attention and ran into the back of the car (I’ve done that myself, this one time…) but there are all sorts of other possibilities…
I know someone who chased a
I know someone who chased a driver who had deliberately swerved to make a close pass on them, when they caught up with them the driver deliberately brake checked to make them run into the back of the car. When the police arrived (called by a bystander as things were getting heated, although not window-smashing heated) he (driver) claimed they had had no previous interaction and he had been stationary for 30 seconds before the cyclist ran into him. It happens…
Daveyraveygravey wrote:
Why do you think it was filmed by his dad? The article doesnt say that.
I’m concerned that people can
I’m concerned that people can drive two-ton lumps of metal around and turn them into weapons but no sign that that’s stopping any time soon
Audi Q7 SQ7: 2265kg
https://upride.cc/incident/cd10wer_audiq7_closerpass/
Another illegal numberplate
Another illegal numberplate that I’m sure the police will crack down on.
Yes, just as diligently as
Yes, just as diligently as they no doubt prosecuted his family member in KD10 WER for the same, and for the mobile use
https://upride.cc/incident/kd10wer_porsche_mobilephone/
It is two-ton lumps of metal,
It is two-ton lumps of metal, powered by explosive chemicals to be precise.
cyclisto wrote:
And proven to be operated unsafely, killing and injuring many thousands of innocent people every year…
Nothing compelling in that
Nothing compelling in that video nor daddy’s blind support for his darling progeny.
Lets hear the full story.
Ninja rocks are much more
Ninja rocks are much more effective, and subtle ( so I’m informed)
Depends on whether you happen
Depends on whether you happen to have any spare spark plugs around. As I understand it. Allegedly.
I hate to get all “wing
I hate to get all “wing mirror”-y, but I was under the impression that the big area of glass at the front of a car is the windscreen. Not the big area of glass at the back.
brooksby wrote:
Front windscreen, rear windscreen, both do a job of screening you from the wind. Although that does of course then beg the question as to why the side windows aren’t called side windscreens…where’s swldxr when you need him?
If the rear windscreen is
If the rear windscreen is screening you from the wind you either have a problem with your other windscreen(s) or your driving, surely? (Of course it can certainly shield you from the noise of the air zipping by or the weather in general, but it’s not a “weathershield” in English).
What about when you’re
What about when you’re stopped and there’s a tailwind? Or indeed you’re driving at 30 mph and there is a 60 mph tailwind?
Or indeed if you’re trying to
Or indeed if you’re trying to outrun a hurricane… but I’d still hope that I’d be moderately shielded by the seat back and by looking towards the front windscreen. Although I understand that is currently not always seen as a necessity.
It’s relatively easy to
It’s relatively easy to outrun a hurricane; it’s even quite often achievable cycling for a reasonably fit person. They normally move at a speed of 10-15 mph, occasionally up to 40mph. Easily escaped in a car, unless there are traffic lights on red (because, as we know, drivers always stop at those).
Of course, if you don’t set off in time, fail to fill up with fuel or check the tyres and washer fluid for all the windscreens beforehand, you could get caught up in the system and then the breeze picks up somewhat.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Its a rear window not a rear windscreen.
It’s a DLO to those in the
It’s a DLO to those in the trade.
I’m open to persuasion on
I’m open to persuasion on this one. What is the big area of glass at the back called?
Never mind that. More
Never mind that. More importantly, since when does a bike lock qualify as a ‘tool’?
(I’d actually call it rear
(I’d actually call it rear windscreen too)
quiff wrote:
Then you’d be wrong
HarrogateSpa wrote:
A rear window. jeesuz, how can anyone not know this?
“Made of tough stuff” – Why
“Made of tough stuff” – Why is his dad still wiping his arse then?
Why hasn’t little “tough stuff” “26-year-old Regan Ross,” done the legwork to find out who this cycling threat to world peace might be? Sounds more like a pussy to me. Grow up and grow some Regan Ross!
I must also observe the level of presumption that has been noted by others:
“He was commuting home and as he pulled up to stop, [on a red route?] the cyclist, who I presume [why presume?] obviously [so now you are sure?] didn’t see him, must [again certainty?] have gone into the back of him. The bus driver saw that happen [but who knows what happended previously] and has the dashcam footage,”
Did the bus driver’s dash cam get the presumptious, obvious, must have happened, poor overtake of cherub Regan who is only in front because he crammed the cyclist into the space behind the bus rather than allowing him to pull out. And when the cyclist decided to remonstrate daddy’s angel Regan slammed his anchors on brake testing the cyclist and ending up having a cyclist in his boot.
I mean why else would you stop on a red route adjacent to a bus unless you are a complete tool and looking to intimidate other road users. Little precious Regan does appear to be driving a BMW. I wonder who it is registered to, daddikins?
All that said and as much I love the idea of twatting Regan’s wheels, from what we can see the cyclist might be bang to rights unless they have some strong evidence to “support” their actions.
BikingBud wrote:
Because there’s stationary traffic in front of you?
Was there?
Was there?
If there was, why would he have pulled over so far to the LHS, was he partially in the bus stop blocking the bus? Whereas he would have/ should have been the other side of the white line not this side of it, in a nice tidy queue.
Unless of course he had pulled across to baulk the cyclist.
But hey we are surmising here and I said before only the 2 of them know what happened and it’s very likely those two stories once recounted will dfiffer.
As you say, we don’t know – I
As you say, we don’t know – I was just saying there are other legitimate reasons to stop on a red route.
Contrary to the article, I think this actually happened on the London Road approach to E&C (the background architecture matches) – https://maps.app.goo.gl/XathnMCaJ8PBQfudA. Perhaps someone pulled across the cycle filter lane without checking…
Yes it is indeed London Road
Yes it is indeed London Road approaching the Elephant and Castle gyratory. No idea where the report has got “Rotherhithe Street” from; Rotherhithe Street, as the name suggests, runs along the Thames in Rotherhithe, several miles away (London’s longest street, trivia fans!) and there is no street of that name around Elephant as far as I’m aware.
It’s not even just that –
It’s not even just that – even the Met (quoted above) reported it as “junction of Newington Butts and Walworth Rd”! Perhaps struggling to reconcile this particular incident to their vast database of road rage altercations near Elephant & Castle!
Comments are disappointingly
Comments are disappointingly tribalist.
I probably shouldn’t have been surprised… We’re really no better than the motorists and their hate-spewing, are we?
Losd wrote:
Well, you doubtless know yourself best. As for the comments below, I see no “hate spewing” against drivers or cars in general, just a suspicion as to whether we are being told the full story or not. If the comments really were like those one finds against cyclists on virtually any story involving a driver/cyclist confrontation on a motoring website, or indeed just general social media, they would be saying shame the cyclist didn’t stove the driver’s head in, cars shouldn’t be allowed on the road at all, why don’t drivers grow up and get a bicycle, got to be the driver’s fault, it always is… they don’t say that and they are not the same as motorists and their “hate spewing”, not at all.
Losd wrote:
Not tribalist but trying to demonstrate the absurdity of the parental intervention and the reporting.
We don’t know what happened, Dave Ross doesn’t know, the bus driver and his dash cam don’t know, the bystanders that rush to bring out their phones rather than trying to dissipate the anger and down play the situation don’t know.
@LOSD Do you know?
The only people that do actually know are the 2 parties that are dancing around the car, one of them appears to have told his dad what happened and his dad has made public assertions based on hearsay.
I wonder what would happen if the cyclist comes out with his own camera footage that indicates a period of woeful driving and threatening behaviour from Tough Stuff Ross.
There are at least 3 versions of events, both of the parties recollections and the truth. Hence my desire to hear the full story.
The police said ““It is
The police said ““It is reported a cyclist hit the driver’s car from behind…”
Interesting how they use the word “cyclist” rather than cycle/bicycle.
I’m assuming it would not have been the same format if it was the other way round?
How often do we hear things like: “It is reported a car hit the cyclist from behind…”
While we may not get to see the footage from the bus showing what led up to the incident, presumably the police will provide some details about it once they have done their investigation or taken it to court.
Whilst not condoning the cyclists actions, I look forward to the driver’s dad eating his words if his son drove dangerously.
From the position of the
From the position of the cyclist when the video starts and the position of the bike later, it looks highly unlikely that the cyclist went “into the back” of the kid’s car. If the cyclist had hit the back, he’d have come off behind the car. His position near the front of the car when the video starts looks more like something happened near the right rear of the MV. The cyclist could have clipped the car by not paying attention when it stopped. Or the car could have moved right and knocked the cyclist off the bike. The window smashing is over the top, but the use of the lock as a “weapon” is clearly a defensive act upon being charged by a young guy looking as if he wants to do harm. Not to mention that the cyclist never hits the kids with the lock, which it appears it would have been easy enough to do. If you watch the video closely, in fact, it appears the cyclist even leans back (the view is partially blocked by a woman’s head) during the kids’ rush as if trying to avoid a blow from the kid. But hey, let’s all go with the analysis of the father, a far from disinterested party, who has to guess at what happened when his kid could obviously have told him what happened, or at least the kid’s view of what happened. Maybe daddy thought that view didn’t look good so he made up his own version? Hard to tell. Maybe the cyclist will emerge to tell his side of the story.
cmedred wrote:
Where the cyclist is at the start of the video isn’t really relevant, since it clearly doesn’t capture the start of the incident. The bike is lying at the rear of the car though.
Surprised cmedred cant see
Surprised cmedred cant see that. Good job he wasnt a witness.
Also its not a ‘kid’. Kids dont drive cars.
“The cyclist could have
“The cyclist could have clipped the car by not paying attention when the driver stopped.”
“Or the driver could have moved right and knocked the cyclist off the bike.”
http://rc-rg.com
Thnaks for the link @mitsky
Thnaks for the link @mitsky
Interesting that within the foreword there is a discussion on accident:
“The word ‘accident’ is particularly problematic. ‘Accident’ suggests that something was unavoidable and beyond control, yet we know most, if not all, road collisions are avoidable or preventable. I am pleased to see that the research shows we have made good progress in avoiding the word accident in favour of collision or crash.”
And
“We analysed 227 police articles from 45 forces. While 75% referred to drivers as people, i.e. ‘A 20-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of dangerous driving…’, almost as frequently this came after several references to their vehicle. In a third of cases a driver was not mentioned at all, and 30% of stories described the vehicle as active. Some more extreme examples were ‘the vehicle attempted to go the wrong way along a slip road’; while more recent examples even described an ‘offending vehicle’.”
Also the use of excess speed not simply speeding.
Great buy in from the Graeme Brown. This needs communicating to all the press!
BikingBud wrote:
It gets posted in road.cc comments around six times daily.
I will take it as a personal
I will take it as a personal activity to send it to all editors who continue to use accident incorreclty.
In fact lets start with the BBC who always blame dleays on “accidents” rather than stating that some muppet has driven beyond their competence and precipitated a collision. Increasing the risk of death, very serious injury and significant delays to all other road users.
BikingBud wrote:
Oh, they’re aware of them – https://road.cc/content/news/bbc-defends-accident-describe-collisions-297145
quiff wrote:
Complaint to BBC raised:
“Traffic Reporting
During your travel announcements you persistently use the phrase “accident”. Use of this term has been assessed and specific advice has been provided MEDIA GUIDELINES FOR REPORTING ROAD COLLISIONS it can be found here: https://www.rc-rg.com/guidelines.
Key in the document is the concept of accident versus collision and Point 2 of 10 for publishers comments:
Avoid use of the word ‘accident’ until the facts of a collision are known. Most collisions are predictable and before an enquiry or court case the full facts are unlikely to be known. It is particularly important to avoid the word when someone has been charged with driving offences. Using ‘crash’ or ‘collision’ instead leaves the question of who or what is to blame open, pending further details.
While many journalists already follow good practice, there is always room for improvement. That improvement should also include your traffic bulletins where using appropriate and technically correct terms would go some way to addressing and adjusting behaviours.
Guidance includes:
Accurate reporting of these deaths and injuries matters. There is growing evidence that poor reporting can confuse or misdirect concern, obscure the solutions, and even engender aggression.
And
It could also mean avoiding use of the term ‘accident’, which risks making crashes seem inevitable and unavoidable, or avoiding ‘grouping’ road users by negative characteristics, to protect those road users from becoming targets of aggression.
I commend the paper to you and suggest that embodying the guidelines in a responsible manner will in some small way impact upon driver behaviour.“
Supplemented by further observation:
“YOUR COMPLAINT:
Incorrect use of phrasing – It wasn’t a car!
Incorrect use of phrasing it wasn’t a car that crashed it was a driver that crashed a car!”
Response as follows:
“Thank you for getting back in touch with us about our use of language in our travel reporting.
We consider that our audiences would understand the context behind the phrasing of ‘a car that crashed’, but we thank you for taking the time to get back in touch with your thoughts on this matter.
We’ve read and noted your points but don’t consider they suggest evidence of a possible breach of standards. Opinions vary widely about our output, but this doesn’t always mean we’ve breached our standards or public service obligations. For this reason we regret we don’t have more to add to our previous correspondence and won’t respond further or address more questions or points.
If you’re not happy with our decision, you can contact the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) within 20 working days of this reply. You’ll need to explain why you think there is a potential breach of standards, or if the issue is significant and should still be investigated.”
Escalated as follows:
“I find the tone and content of the response condescending, woeful and unworthy, it smacks of not having fully reviewed the observation and simply trying to close down the bothersome complaint. The response does not capture nor address the fact that people with specialist skills and responsibility have issued guidance to prevent poor reporting of Road Traffic Collisions because they find that reporting of collisions is currently wholly inaccurately. Your staff in investigating the complaint thoroughly should have found that contrary to their assertion that their audiences would understand “a car that crashed“ that the report authors consider that “Accurate reporting of these deaths and injuries matters.There is growing evidence that poor reporting can confuse or misdirect concern, obscure the solutions, and even engender aggression.”
One must ask if those specialist personnel, within the responsible organisations, consider that the phrases currently in common use in reporting road collisions inadequately capture the classification and reporting of those incidents, how and why do your staff feel it is appropriate to continue with your current poor practice? I also find it compelling that a trigger for this change in attitudes occurred over 40 years ago when TV presenter Nick Ross was famously challenged by BBC colleagues to make a programme about road safety that was interesting. Yet here we are 40 years on and members of that very same organisation are deriding the efforts of the very specialists that are trying to influence this long overdue change.
To me the bottom line appears to be the report authors determined that the public are ambivalent and contradictory, but more than that and perhaps more importantly those that influence and shape public perception, the news and media, are also ambivalent. We killed 1624 people on UK roads in the UK in 2023 just shy of 4.5 people per day. By any means of assessment of causality there would be public outcry with this massacre The response above is as I said before condescending and absolutely typifies the behaviours and beliefs that the report authors are struggling to change. I commend that you review this response in the broader context, review the resources on line here: https://www.rc-rg.com/guidelines and support my assertion that the BBC needs to address this behaviour not least the behaviour of the author of this response and realign their internal and external messaging to a more tolerant acceptance of well reasoned observations from the public and adjust the Corporations response to reflect best guidance and refrain from using inaccurate phrases such as “accident”.
See what goes next!
I pointed out the use of
I pointed out the use of incorrect language to the BBC’s senior transport correspondent Tom Edwards.
I even pointed out that the All Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling and Walking was using the correct language, not the same as his, and suggested to him that he challenge their writing.
He blocked me.
(I was not abusive or trolling, he simply disagreed with me and did not put up any usefull argument to defend himself or justify the contradictory language like when its a cyclIST that hits a pedestrian.)
‘He’s more upset about not
‘He’s more upset about not currently having a car.”
obvioulsy.
There is not enough
There is not enough information in the piece to make any comment on this particular case but on a general note it seems to me that years of inaction by many police forces in failing to deal adequately with submitted footage of poor driving around cyclists may lead to more of this vigilante behaviour. Many of us have patiently reported bad driving for many years only to be met with the responses summed up in this piece from roadcc.
https://road.cc/content/news/close-pass-isnt-offence-says-police-officer-310433
1kg bike lock used as a
1kg bike lock used as a weapon – major news story.
1,800kg vehicle used as a weapon – happens >50 times a day in Greater London alone, not news at all.
Mr Ross will shit it when he
Mr Ross will shit it when he discovers cars being turned into weapons.
Also, have we got footage that doesn’t massage ultratwat musk’s ego?
And finally, why do these muppets throw around words like ‘obviously’ to support their argument, yet demand full facts on another day?
My son was driving normally
“My son was driving normally and then stopped and then a cyclist ran into the back of him because he obviously didn’t see him and then the cyclist went into a rage” is about as likely as there not being 1000’s of KSI’s on the roads this year.
I’d go for ‘the sun was in my
I’d go for ‘the sun was in my eyes’ as a defence, get away with murder with that one…
A 26 yr old in a £60k BMW M2
A 26 yr old in a £60k BMW M2
Wish I’d worked harder at school…
PRSboy wrote:
Quite probably on a lease, like 30% of new cars sold in the UK (I believe that percentage rises for the more expensive brands/models) so it doesn’t really belong to him (although in his mind I’m sure it does). You can lease an M2 for around £600 a month and it’s both sad and hilarious to see how many people are prepared to waste huge amounts of money on such deals (where you never own the car and have nothing to show for all the expenditure once your lease is up) and indeed put themselves in serious debt to afford them just so they can keep up with the Joneses by pretending they are successful enough to own such a vehicle.
Is it as low as 60%? I was
Is it as low as 30%? I was under the impression that virtually no new cars are actually – you know – “sold” any more…
I couldn’t bring myself to
I couldn’t bring myself to spend that much money (whether outright or monthly) on a car – particularly as I only do about 3,000 miles a year. I generally like to own rather than rent things. I would feel environmentally guilty about replacing a perfectly good car every time the lease is up. Other such objections.
And yet still I feel weirdly jealous of people with nice new cars and if my numbers every came up I’d be straight down to a car dealership.
That’s more than double my
That’s more than double my car mileage but I’m kinda in the same boat, but I don’t feel jealous of folk I’d rather have the freedom to spend my cash elsewhere.
Agreed, those those in thrall
Agreed, though those in thrall to the car lease would probably think the same of my coffee expenditure…
You can lease an M2 for
You can lease an M2 for around £600 a month
This is off-topic, but sheds some light on the dodging Ways of the Wealthy. We all know that there’s an exceedingly high probability that the driver of this vehicle is an utter tool. This reminded me of one of my own videos of a BMW M-something, so I looked it up- it’s an RLJ at 50+ mph.
https://upride.cc/incident/a15tjv_bmwm4_redlightpass/
Turns out it’s an M4, so clearly an even greater tool, and that A15 TJV is no longer attached to a vehicle. BMW-Apologists will say that he’s naturally just bought another BMW M9 or whatever in order to enjoy crashing through Lancashire lights at 100 mph, but we also all know that the same vanity plate would usually be immediately applied to the replacement psychomobile. Therefore, because we know he hasn’t suddenly taken to cycling and is driving about in something unless he’s been ‘totalled’, he’s ‘hiding’ this plate to avoid the consequences of anyone such as an insurance company searching the internet for A15 TJV– which does bring up the upRide video. As you all know, the police did nothing at all about the red light offence, which has now been ‘disappeared’. This reminded me of the disappearance of 4148 VZ, which was this bus which you’ve seen before. The plate was de-allocated within a few months and has now been reassigned to a different bus owned by Travellers Choice
https://upride.cc/incident/4148vz_travellerschoicecoach_closepass/
With Lancashire Constabulary refusing to say what, if anything, was the penalty for that offence, the offence completely disappeared,
Rendel Harris wrote:
Fixed that for you 😉
Leasing a car out is
Leasing a car out is worthwhile if the expenditure amounts to less than the value depreciation during the lease term. Doesn’t happen often, but occasionally some good deals can be had, like the recently seen BMW i7 for £350 a month over 24 months. £100k cars. I wouldn’t want one, but on those terms it is a steal.
Only £350 a month? I wonder
Only £350 a month? I wonder why? (Great car I’m sure, but I hate the recent BMW grille design)
But what is the small print
But what is the small print for mileage, state of the vehicle after 2 years? Lots of potential extra costs.
Also you don’t have to get a new car, used ones are available.
Sounds a bit specific though
Sounds a bit specific though given 90% are bought on some sort of finance.
Hirsute wrote:
Well yes but that’s the point of leasing, to buy that £60,000 car on finance you might have to put down a deposit of £10,000 and pay £1500 a month for three years, whereas with leasing you can swan around pretending that you are wealthy and successful enough to afford the vehicle for about a third of the price. You don’t have to tell anyone that it doesn’t actually belong to you!
Rendel Harris wrote:
I think you’re over-generalising a bit there, aside from the tax efficient nature of leasing for companies, many individuals will choose to finance a car because they want a single, predictable monthly outgoing which includes insurance, VED, servicing, breakdown assistance, consumables, everything except fuel. Not every leased car on the road is some kind of otherwise unaffordable performance car or monster SUV.
The largest lease operator in the UK is of course Motability Operations.
Sure but you can use hire
Sure but you can use hire purchase, 0% finance, PCP and lease for arrangements – hence lease being a bit specific. Still 90% on some finance arrangement.
It’s clearly a shit car, you
It’s clearly a shit car, you won’t get your cycle in the back of it and it won’t have a CD player.
hutchdaddy wrote:
But could you retro fit an 8 track player?
BikingBud wrote:
But could you retro fit an 8 track player?— hutchdaddy
Or this?
So what’s the news on this
So what’s the news on this did daddy sort it all out?