Update, 13/09/21, 5:44pm: a Wiltshire Police spokesman has now responded after being asked for comment. The full statement is below, and the original article appears underneath it.
“In line with national policy, in cases of common assault with no injury, where the offender is identified and fully admits the offence, then an adult caution is deemed a suitable outcome.
“We are committed to providing a high level of service for all victims of crime, and if any victim is dissatisfied with the service they have received then they can make a formal complaint via the Office for the Police and Crime Commissioner.”
A shocking video shows a cyclist being punched multiple times in the face by a driver who was enraged that he was riding two abreast in a group.
Ady Short’s wife, who was riding in front of the car, was also knocked off her bike by the driver as he attacked her husband through the car window.
Mr Short was out with his wife and six other Swindon Wheelers club members when the driver of a black Nissan caught up with them on a bendy section of road where he was unable to overtake.
Mr Short said: “He followed us for about 90 seconds, overtook us and braked hard in front of the group causing us to swerve around him but as we rode around him he took off again within the group causing further issues whilst remonstrating about us not singling out (he wouldn’t have got past one person let alone eight through the bendy section).”
While this, as Mr Short pointed out is, sadly, an all too common occurrence for cyclists on Britain’s roads, what happened next was shocking.
> Aggressive driver in total meltdown with Carmarthenshire cyclists after close pass
Mr Short continued: “As club secretary and a trained Ride Lead we’re meant to de-escalate any situations so normally (happens too often) we wait to hear what they say and then explain why we were riding two abreast.
“He was very angry as you can see but before I could explain he started hitting me, I just suffered a black eye as a result and didn’t actually get the chance to say anything before he hit me.
“He also knocked my wife off her bike, the camera was hers and she suffered cuts and bruises but wasn’t considered part of the case as the police couldn’t actually see her.
“We made the guy wait as the police were called and told him when he tried to drive off that he would end up in more trouble.”
> Police install ‘give cyclists room’ signs…local asks for ‘cyclists single file’ version
Mr Short said he had been told by Wiltshire Police that the driver ‘fully admitted’ the assault and claimed to be very remorseful.
The driver was only handed a caution for the unprovoked attack.
Mr Short said the group were looking into appealing the seemingly light punishment.
He also explained why he had tried to talk to the driver in the first place.
He said: “Generally, in our experience, it just humanises the situation if we can let them blow off steam and appear calm, we usually explain that we all drive cars as well and apologise for any inconvenience even though we shouldn’t have to apologise it just seems to take the anger out of the situation.
“Its a case by case basis as to whether we talk about must and should where the highway code is concerned, this guy was absolutely adamant that we must ride single file which is what he was shouting about as I cycled by him…
“What took the steam out of this situation more than anything post fracas was my wife shouting that we had cameras.”
Wiltshire Police have been contacted for comment.
Update, 13/09/2021: We’ve had a huge response to this article, with many readers expressing shock and distress, plus surprise at the response from Wiltshire Police. You can contact the office for the Wiltshire Police and Crime Commissioner here, and if you were directly affected, you can make a complaint here.
208 thoughts on “Cyclist punched repeatedly in the head by aggressive driver furious that group were riding two abreast”
That driver has demonstrated
That driver has demonstrated an inability to control his emotions while at the controls of a deadly weapon and so, as a minimum, should be banned from operating same ever again. The preceding sentence would be considered the only rational response were this a society of a species that didn’t evolve from shit-flinging, status-obsessed monkeys. But, being as that is not the case, of course he’ll be allowed to keep possession of this thing that gives him status, and be allowed to continue flinging his shit around. Until, that is, the day he kills another one of the hairless apes, at which point one of the higher status monkeys may choose to punish him for reducing the size of the tribe, if they decide his victim wasn’t so low status that it is not worth bothering.
I think between them they
I think between them they could ensure an insurance payout to make his driving in future to be prohibitively expensive. Damage to several bikes, kit and the concussion and injuries from the assaults plus significant psychological trauma. Which would be a shame
Just a caution for a road
Just a caution for a road rage assault? Some time performing community service would have sent a stronger message and ensured that they spent at least some time thinking about their childish behaviour.
“but wasn’t considered part
“but wasn’t considered part of the case as the police couldn’t actually see her. “
So the death knell for dashcam footage and helmetcam footage.
I’m glad Wilstshire Police cleared that up.
They are an absoute disgrace – driver commited multiple offences but gets off scott free.
He needs a long ban and an extensive retest.
Yes, bikes are known for just
Yes, bikes are known for just riding along by themselves with no one on them,
This is definite complaint worthy. Unprovoked assault. Knocking down another road user whilst driving dangerously (one hand off the wheel and not looking forward) let alone the brake checks. Police reponse – Well he said sorry and didn’t mean it.
hirsute wrote:
Actually you do see her because when she get knocked off by the driver you see her foot, under the car.
Could be anyone’s foot (I’m
Could be anyone’s foot (I’m sure that’s how the defense would go).
Hmm, not a great result. How
Hmm, not a great result. How much of an inconvenience getting a caution for assault is, depends a lot on personal circumstances.
If you’re self-employed or a scroat, then not much impact. If you’re employed as a professional or in a sensitive role, it could mean losing your job, or not being able to move job or gain promotion for the 6 years it stays on record.
When I was physically
When I was physically assaulted on my bike and reported it to the police, the driver didn’t even get a caution … he admitted the assault but told the policeman he was sorry and that was the end if it. Clear video of the guy speeding. Clear video of them throwing a projectile that hit me on the head. 4 inches lower I’d be blind, concussed, maybe dead but because it luckily hit my helmet and I wasn’t injured the aggressive driver just gets away with it.
Another reason not to wear a
Another reason not to wear a helmet……
How something as unprovoked,
How something as unprovoked, unexpected, unnecessary and unpleasant got away with just a caution is unbelievable! Even if the piss-poor driving didn’t warrant points, surely the assault did! Why does the law continue to refuse to protect us?
MattieKempy wrote:
As I’ve previously suggested, is either in the same lodge as the chief constable, or possibly a police themselves or a close relative.
I really hope the group
I really hope the group appeals this appallingly lenient “sentence”. That driver needs banning and retesting if he cannot control his rage when driving.
There is no way to appeal.
There is no way to appeal. All that can be done is submit a complaint to the police.
As above, go after the driver in a civil claim to knacker his insurance.
There must be some damage to
There must be some damage to one of the bikes as a minimum submit a claim to his insurance company for a respray with this as evidence.
IanMK wrote:
There is also injury, and damage to clothing due to hitting the deck. Gloves is a good one. Photos of injuries works wonders for insurance claims.
The claim won’t be rejected with that footage.
I am a criminal defence
I am a criminal defence solicitor. This is obviously NOT a cautionable offence- it’s road rage and multiple assault. Even if it was cautionable a caution should only be administered with the victims consent. Nothing in the article indicates consent. The victim should write to the duty inspector asking for immediate explanation as to what has happened and seek a review. I would also report this to the local police crime commissioner.
Definitely appeal. I had a
Definitely appeal. I had a truck driver try to put me under his wheels three times, then mount the pavement and drive into the hedgerow to block me off, he got out, punched me and I fell to the ground. He reached over and went to punch me again but I caught him in the crotch with a well aimed kick.
I had no video evidence, but 5 independent witnesses. He left the scene but somebody got his reg.
He avoided all attempts by the police to contact him until his wife was told they would put an ANPR marker on his car and he would be stopped and arrested if he pinged an ANPR camera anywhere in the country. He eventually presented himself for interview at the police station but denied it all.
Taken to court, and obviously after eventually getting legal advice pleaded guilty.
He got a 12 week prison sentence suspended for 12 months.
His licence was revoked for 12 months. The Traffic Commissioner (who has greater powers than th courts) was going to be advised by the police that his HGV licence should be revoked for life (the police said the TC ALWAYS listens to their advice)
He was fined over £1200 (which I subsequently found comes to me! N+1 fund coffers expanded nicely thank you!).
He was sacked by his employer. And if the TC revokes his HGV for good will never drive a truck again on our roads.
He admitted he had ‘anger management issues’. No shit. Right result if you ask me.
So the victim here should definitely appeal. Why no assault charge with video evidence is unbelievable.
So you are singlehandely to
So you are singlehandely to blame for the shortage in lorry drivers. And fancy going after his employment. Boo wouldn’t be pleased at all.
Anyone else noticed the
Anyone else noticed the perversity that the first thing called for was to increase the allowed driving hours of these already overworked, tired and succeptable to anger, frustrated drivers?
ktache wrote:
Surely we should be asking our neighbouring countries if they could send us their spare drivers?
ktache wrote:
Tories wanking at the opportunity of deregulation. What do you expect?
Err, I never went after
Err, I never went after anything. I merely reported the incident to the police, made my statement and gave the witness details. I had nothing more to do with it.
Sorry PP, I should realise
Sorry PP, I should realise not everyone is as sad as a core few on here who look at all the comments on all the stories. Quick catchup was somebody stated it is wrong to target someones livelihood even if they posted on a public forum they would take said employer-supplied equipment and run over cyclists any chance they get.
I haven’t read all the
I haven’t read all the comments yet so forgive me, but if it was a windy road then he couldn’t have overtaken safely even if they’d been in single file, surely? He would have still (as he did) have had until there was a straight bit and no oncoming traffic. So what they were doing made no f-ing difference!
(that’s better – got it off my chest)
The minimum this driver
The minimum this driver should get is a driving ban and at least a community order. Anything less risks the offender doing it again. However, to me this incident deserves a far greater punishment. He risks pulling the rider under his rear wheel before punching him, as well as nearly running over his wife. For me, this has to warrant a custodial sentence.
In regards to the riders, as they’ve been so badly failed by the police, they should seek a civil claim on the damages to their equipment as well as the injuries, trauma and any loss of earnings. Hopefully the awards of such a claim will provide the deterrent that the police action should have enacted.
The diffuse tactics will not work with people who have that much anger. I ride solo and if anyone puts my safety at risk then I will react with the severity that their actions warrant. A bully inflicts on others to mask their own insecurities. An individual that targets vulnerable road users whilst in the safety of their steel cage is nothing but a coward.
It shouldn’t be like this, better education would reduce the number of people like this taking their ill informed, lazy, bigoted views onto the road. However, when these incidents arise, the police must treat these as serious crimes. With so many forces across the country failing spectacularly, direction must come from the government, with clear direction and supporting legislation. If nothing is done, with the uptake of cycling only set to increase, the numbers of incidents like these will only rise further.
sensei wrote:
— sensei[pedant on] DEFUSE [pedant off]
Otherwise excellent.
eburtthebike wrote:
I appreciate the correction, I usually don’t miss these but well spotted.
sensei wrote:
Not really well spotted; it’s one of my favourites.
Well, diffuse means to spread
Well, diffuse means to spread all over the place, considerably weakening. Sounds like it might work to me!
HoarseMann wrote:
And a more appropriate metaphor for
As in, you’re letting the energy of their anger dissipate and fade, rather than removing an immediate trigger point that could prompt an explosion.
“…explain why we were
“…explain why we were riding two abreast.”
You don’t need a reason why.
Another one of the Uneducated
Another one of the Uneducated Car mob who think VED and tax on road fuels entitles them to all of the road space….
That’s outrageous behaviour
That’s outrageous behaviour by both the driver and more importantly by Wiltshire police.
Being attacked in this way simply for riding a bike has to be more serious than simply receiving a caution.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
This is welcome and rare show of common sense from you, although I’m sure I’m not alone in awaiting the “but”. I’ve largely stopped engaging with you directly, as your views are no longer funny or even edgy.
However, I’ll use this opportunity to suggest that you think a bit harder about how you come across, if not your opinions themselves.
Your foolish defence of the lorry driver the other day, and the condemnation of those reporting him is a case in point, as the attitudes that he presented have a logical conclusion – eg the behaviour illustrated in this article.
Thank Christ this individual was only driving a car and not an lgv
Sorry to hear that, but for
Sorry to hear that, but for me there is a major difference between being a bit thick and writing something like a keyboard warrior on the internet (let’s face it he could just have posted anonymously), and actually carrying out a crime such as this. As mentioned I find the police’s action breathtakingly lenient in this case. No buts.
As for how people think I come across, I couldn’t give two hoots. I’d happily also put money towards a proper prosecution as a couple of others have mentioned if it was set up.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I don’t actually believe that, you care very much. You just aren’t aware of the contempt in which you are held.
I’ll return to my previous policy of not engaging. Have a great weekend
If I cared very much, I’d
If I cared very much, I’d self-censor myself. Find it a bit odd you’ve decided to post some vitriol here, but que sera – perhaps you’re not as righteous as you think you are either.
Have a great weekend too nonetheless.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Hi Nigel I know we have had our differences but this post was apposite, succinct and well said.
Thank you, have a like and a good week
That is utterly shocking and
That is utterly shocking and a piss poor response from the police.
Surely as members of a club they will be members of British Cycling as a minimum. I hope they have been brought into the loop and their lawyers instructed accordingly. I get a funny feeling a civil case would definitely be within their remit.
I couldn’t agree more.
I couldn’t agree more.
A caution. Brilliant
A caution. Brilliant
What was the caution,
What was the caution, “Careful, you may scratch your vehicle” ?
Shame on you wilts police.
Shame on you wilts police. Facking shame.
So assault isn’t assault?
So assault isn’t assault?
So long as you don’t actually
So long as you don’t actually get out of the car.
and its towards a cyclist
and its towards a cyclist
I can’t stop picking at this.
I can’t stop picking at this. Have teh victims put this up on Twatter and tagged WP in? This is distinct name and shame stuff
Driver punching someone
Driver punching someone outside the car, obviously not in full control of the vehicle, isn’t that an offence?
We seem to be getting trolls
We seem to be getting trolls who are ever more thick and illiterate.
It seems that its still the
It seems that its still the case that if you want to commit a crime do it against a cyclist and you’ll get let off….
I’ve been attacked like that
I’ve been attacked like that on a number of occasions for various reasons, the drivers got out of the cars and tried to beat me up, being brought up in a rough London area I knew how to look after myself – I won every time. the best one was when I knocked an aggressive thug out , when he became conscious he crawled along the road to his car and drove off- it was so funny, I still laugh about it.
You must be a hard man King
You must be a hard man King and I’m sure your story improves with each retelling, however you have no idea if knocking someone out can lead to serious injury, death or a manslaughter charge. Time to grow-up and ponder if laughing at extreme violence is a normal adjusted response or on the spectrum?
The big thug was hitting me –
The big thug was hitting me – what should I have done, stand still like a gentleman and get knocked to the ground? would you fight back ? yes, you would, also this is the first time I have told anybody, it happened a long time ago – 60 years ago.
You can be a gentleman AND a
You can be a gentleman AND a thug.
It’s not me, I don’t smoke.
It’s not me, I don’t smoke.
kingleo wrote:
kingleo, I’m all for learning new things – have you any tricks when someone gets out and tries to attack you? In the interests of self-defense 🙂
Allen Key wrote:
Please don’t go there. You can have no idea how skilled your opponent is in fighting, how pscyhopathic they are, or what weapons they may be carrying. If you are better than them, as someone else sensibly pointed out, that could lead to you ending up on the wrong end of a manslaughter charge for a single punch that made someone fall and hit their head – your whole life ruined, for what? Proving you’re “hard”? If someone exits their car and tries to attack you, you’ve got a bike and they’re on foot, get yourself out of there and when you’re a safe distance away call 999.
All it takes is for someone
All it takes is for someone to have and use a knife.
If you think you have sufficient skills to deal with a knife user, do a little test by giving someone a marker pen (lid-off) and see how you fare when sparring with them. You’re much better off getting away from them.
(Though when I did a bit of kung-fu, our teacher did show us a technique to get a knife-wielder to slit their own throat without getting your own fingerprints on the blade. Not sure I’d have the presence of mind to get the timing and technique exactly right though)
I used to teach knife
I used to teach knife defences, many of which involved the attacker conveniently impaling themselves. We started with rubber knives, then wood and finally real knives.
Even though I taught such things, I would only ever use them as a very last resort i.e. if actually being attacked. Not worth the risk.
Stop talking rubbish I’m
Stop talking rubbish I’m nearly 80, I can hardly walk, how the hell can I get the hell out there?
By fighting back I’m protecting myself from serious injury or death – do you understand that?
You should stop living in your fantasy world and start living in the real world.
I was attacked at Barnes Station by a gang – I phoned the police, nobody turned up – a few weeks later I received a leaflet from the police asking me to tell them “how did we do”.
First of all, the event you
First of all, the event you are bragging and laughing about where you rendered somebody unconscious was, by your own admission, 60 years ago, so I was not talking about what is happening now as you well know (and I’m not sure how anyone is supposed to guess your age from your posts and speak accordingly). Secondly, if you can barely walk how can you fight? Thirdly, I wasn’t even addressing you. Lastly, I live in a very much rougher area of London than Barnes so I do very much live in the real world; long experience of living in it has taught me that the best thing to do is not to use violence but to remove oneself from the situation whenever possible. You appear to revel in violence and find it amusing – I don’t.
I use my age, I tell them “I
I use my age, I tell them “I’m nearly 80 – if you attack me you will be put in prison for 5 years” – that works very well.
Or, even if you have done nothing wrong say you are sorry and make a humbling apology – in other words, give the aggressive thugs the feeling that he or she has conquered you and won the battle.
Or, if it is not a physical attack, say or do nothing – let them have their aggressive rant – that works very well.
Uh-oh, hope I didn’t start an
Uh-oh, hope I didn’t start an argument… When I said,
if the reply had been, “yeah – run like hell!” I would have grinned 🙂 Let’s be honest though, in quite a few of these clips, people have banged on roofs, shouted offensive stuff, pulled on wing mirrors…
Maybe the ‘trick’ is to avoid antagonizing people in the first place?
Anyway, sorry if I implied fighting was my goal, I only meant in last resort self-defense to enable an escape, “Kick ’em in the ghoulies”
I think the driver should
I think the driver should definitely be charged with assault and do not condone his actions in any way. I cannot see how the police can possibly justify not doing that. However I would recommend that if you are trying to talk to an angry driver and diffuse the situation it would definitely be best not to twice grab hold of his mirror. I am not justifying the drivers actions, they were clearly wrong but just saying if you are setting out to calm a situation, it is usually best to not start by grabbing the other persons car.
Don’t be daft.
Don’t be daft.
IvorRoubaix wrote:
[pedant on again]DEFUSE[pedant off again]
eburtthebike wrote:
[pedant on again]DEFUSE[pedant off again]— IvorRoubaix
You are technically correct (the best kind of correct), but try not to loose your head. He could of been a non-English speaker.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
[pedant on]could HAVE[pedant off]
Steve K wrote:
Woosch!
I did wonder as I posted it..
I did wonder as I posted it…
*lose
*lose
I think that was the point…
I think that was the point…
Steve K wrote:
I’m just surprised that nobody pointed out the other deliberate mistake.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
.
eburtthebike wrote:
[pedant on again]DEFUSE[pedant off again]— IvorRoubaix
Though you could be trying to diffuse anger, leaving spread out resentment that isn’t concentrated enough to result in violence.
The rider was keeping his
The rider was keeping his balance whilst talking to the driver, it quite clearly wasn’t in any way aggressive. If the driver’s so protective of his wankpanzer that he thinks anyone who breathes on it deserves punching, that’s on him.
Worth noting that if the driver hadn’t made a dangerous and illegal manouevre by slowing in front of the group to argue with them the cyclist wouldn’t have been anywhere near his car. Typical bully behaviour, he thought he should be allowed to berate the cyclists without contradiction, the second he’s challenged loses it.
I thought after rewatching
I thought after rewatching that they were simply trying not to overbalance at such low speed.
Don’t cycle so close to a nutter as they could also door you !
Beat me to it.
Beat me to it.
NEVER touch another person / their possession in a confrontation.
It can only make it worse.
I wonder if farty drives a
I wonder if farty drives a black Nissan?
Maybe he will when he’s old
Maybe he will when he’s old enough to get a driving licence.
Just like to thank road.cc
Just like to thank road.cc for asking the police for a comment. I look forward to reading the reply.
Who makes sure the police
Who makes sure the police actually police properly? IPCC?
This implies that someone could assault someone like a policeman on a bike, say sorry then go home.
The person should also be sued for damages.
This person will do it again.
They’re called the IOPC now
They’re called the IOPC now (Independent Office for Police Conduct), but yes, supposedly them. However, in practice unless it’s a very serious complaint (corruption, police action or inaction leading to death etc) they tend to refer complaints back to the police force being complained about for investigation and don’t often go against their findings, so effectively the police get to mark their own homework quite a lot of the time.
Indeed. Let’s bear in mind
Indeed. Let’s bear in mind here that West Mids copper who IOPC cleared, who has literally now been convicted of assault for beating up two black guys on consecutive days, both in full view on CCTV …
IOPC exists solely to excuse the police for as much as they think they can possibly get away with.
Camera evidence AND witnesses
Camera evidence AND witnesses; only a caution! Next time I’m riding I’ll save the weight and leave the cameras at home; normally if I’m riding with someone else I’ll leave them behind as I’ve (hopefully) got a witness in an incident.
Not sure about this business of explaining group riding to the crazy driver close up; I’ve had the odd one of these types of incident and I stay well behind, or to the side (at a distance), of the car (with an escape route if needed) to exchange any words. The driver just vents his spleen and clears off; by that time another motorist is usually yelling at him to move on as he’s blocking the road.
Putting the assault to one
Putting the assault to one side what about the crash? I hope the cyclist with bruises claimed on his insurance.
So 2 assaults with a weapon
So 2 assaults with a weapon (a car) or Careless/Dangerous driving as our car centric lawmakers would have it.
One real physical assault and Wiltshire cops do nothing.
I’d be making a formal complaint to the Chief Constable and their Crime Commissioner.
I’m three pages too late to
I’m three pages too late to this comments party.. but WTF.
That the moton gets a just a caution for that, is shocking!
I can kind of see what the
I can kind of see what the Police are probably thinking… it’s pointless pursuing this any further as the charges associated with doing so, are likely to end up in county court. Doing so, means a jury will decide what has gone on here… sadly I can see that jury believing a defence based on acting in self defence… his motor vehicle had been surrounded by raging cyclists, etc. etc.
Its a waste of everyones time to try and take further action.
Justice and accountability very much come second to resource / workload management.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
That’s the CPSs decision, not theirs.
In any case, I’d like to know exactly what priority Wilts Police actually believe tops catching an individual red handed when
in one incident lasting less than 20s.
Unless it’s tea. It, after all, doesn’t drink itself…
Indeed it should be the CPS’s
Indeed it should be the CPS’s decision… however I can easily see ‘stretched’ forces preempting CPS’s thought processes and saving themselves the bother of submitting anything…
It’s not right, but you can see how it happens, especially, as you say, there are brews to be savoured somewhere.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
But what criteria are used to allocate these resources, just how serious must it be to get a proper investigation?
Driver is a complete and
Driver is a complete and total dork and should be imprisoned.
Cyclist has not behaved in a way to defuse things by putting his hands on the car and trying to explain – how can you be logical with someone who is clearly lacking all logic and control?
Just walk on / bike on by.
The thing which surprises me
The thing which surprises me is that the actual overtake was safe, in the scheme of things, rather than the close-pass-horn-blow that usually happens in such incidents.
If nothing else, the more I see of this sort of thing the more I think its best to not react at all, unless its a matter of personal safety and I want to let a driver know I’m there. People seem increasingly unhinged, no good ever seems to come of a ‘discussion’ and you may just be the straw that breaks the camels back. I’m usually out for a bike ride to enjoy myself, and getting all worked up with drivers just makes me feel angry. Best take a deep breath, enjoy the scenery.
Probably would have been
Probably would have been better not touching the car. Its seems to really wind up some car drivers and I’d usually only do that if I actually was trying to wind them up. And tbh that “punch” was a bit happy slappy really and he didnt positively drive at the bike in front of him he was just incompetent and rolled forward. All a bit handbags.
Does raise an interesting point about these growing large cycle groups and what drivers should do when they come upon them. Maybe be it should be a bit extra on driving lessons etc
Just as well he ‘positively’
Just as well he ‘positively’ braked then and didn’t drive over her head or the head of the ‘punched’ bloke.
Always a bit of handbags when there is a person v 1.5T of metal involved – it’s just like 2 second rows having a dingdong.
Are we looking at the same
Are we looking at the same video? I’m looking at one where the driver first brake checked a fast-moving group of cyclists, then pulled a cyclist from his bike and started hitting him whilst still moving – something that could easily have seen the cyclist’s legs or more disappear under the wheels – and whilst he is doing so he continues moving forward and hits the cyclist in front of him, knocking her down. This is “a bit happy slappy”, “just incompetent” and “All a bit handbags”? I know you are hard-wired to defend any decisions of your friends in blue but you’re just being ridiculous here.
Keep it in perspective. Its a
Keep it in perspective. Its a scuffle . Words of advice but as usual the cycling lawyers are out in force here describing it as a full on attack with a cyclist beaten half to death and another repeatedly run over. its none of that really is it.
nicmason wrote:
A scuffle is two people engaging with each other in a minor physical altercation. This is one person launching a cowardly and unprovoked attack on another, grabbing him by the arm and pulling him off his bike whilst using the other arm to strike him about the head. All this whilst still in control of a moving vehicle. As I said above, it’s pure luck that the male cyclist didn’t go under the wheels, and it’s also pure luck that the female cyclist wasn’t more badly injured by being struck.
A scuffle is what you break up between two children in a playground, not a grown adult in a moving vehicle dragging a cyclist off his bike in order to punch him. See the difference?
Loving your definition of
Loving your definition of scuffle. ” two people engaging with each other in a minor physical altercation” spot on and thats what this was.
And the cyclist in front that
And the cyclist in front that he drove into, what about a charge for that bit of negligence behind the wheel?
The police here in Australia get criticised a lot, but there’s no doubt that driver would be facing multiple charges if he’d done that here.
nicmason wrote:
I do hope you never end up on a jury, and that indeed despite appearances you never were a police officer, as you are utterly incapable of seeing what is right in front of your face. Once again for the hard of thinking, grabbing a moving cyclist by the neck and punching him in the face with your other hand whilst your car is still moving and running it into another cyclist is not a minor physical altercation. You can defend all you like but whomever you think is at fault it’s just not minor.
Well right back at you. I can
Well right back at you. I can see the video and that is all the evidence and its a minor incident.
I remember your
I remember your interpretation of a video on a near miss where you stated both cyclists rode up the inside of the vehicle ahead of them when one of them was ALWAYS in front of the vehicle in question. So forgive me if I do not trust your visual capacity or reasoning skills.
No one said that though.
No one said that though.
Although I forgot, you don’t do consequences. It’s simply what happened not what could have happened following reckless actions.
I think you’ll find law
I think you’ll find law doesnt do what might have happened just what did happen.
Really – you should look up
Really – you should look up how recklessness is defined. Or criminal damage.
nicmason wrote:
I think you’ll find that the law does indeed “do what might have happened” as a result of actions, otherwise drunk drivers would be let off unless they caused an accident, people who discharge firearms in public places would be let off if they didn’t hit anyone, people carrying knives would be let off unless they actually used them on someone…there is a panoply of laws that exist to sanction behaviour that might lead to undesirable results, and that result doesn’t have to be achieved for sanction to be applied.
If I shoot at you and miss, would I not be charged with attempted murder because what “might have happened” didn’t?
nicmason wrote:
The key bit here which makes the incident so serious is that the offender was doing so whilst operating a vehicle that could easily have caused serious injury or worse. Intent started with the horn beep and then the brake check truly exposed the offender’s dangerous behaviour. At this stage the rider in my opinion used the wrong tactic to try and “defuse” the situation. The assault occurred from the moment the driver grabbed the rider’s arm (whilst the vehicle was moving). At that stage there was a serious risk of the rider being dragged under the wheels of the car, the punches that followed (feeble as they were) only heightened that risk.
On another day we could have been talking about a fatality and it is only luck that didn’t happen. This is before we consider the fact the driver nearly ran over the rider’s wife. The caution will inevitably make the driver feel he got away with it. This driver will be back on the road with the satisfaction of a lenient punishment and nothing to prevent him from carrying out his cowardly prejudice on other vulnerable road users, because that too has not been addressed!
This is an epic fail from the police in providing the punishment necessary to deter future actions, with the added clanger of not providing any tools of prevention (such as an anger management course and psychiatric therapy before being allowed behind the wheel again). Here’s the irony, in an effort to save themselves time and hassle, they will inevitably be dodging bullets on this issue for a long time to come!
Wh is the “we” you keep
Who is the “we” you keep referring to ? You and your mates down at the lets google law club.
nicmason wrote:
Nope, we = wider society.
I did do law at A-level and as part of my degree but didn’t quite make it to the “bar”.
Actually I think its we as in
Actually I think its we as in “people like me who agree with me” like a me-we or a we-me. Try and get out more. It may be helpful.
nicmason wrote:
So you’re telling me what my own interpretation of “we” is when I answered your question directly?!
This is exactly the type of blinkered and egotistical attitude that led to this motorist becoming enraged over the cyclists perfectly legal and actually recommended riding position.
I get out plenty thanks, unfortunately all too often my enjoyment is spoiled by ignorant, incompetent and at times dangerous drivers. But hey, at least they’ll have you to defend them!
youre quoting “wider society”
youre quoting “wider society”. what on earth does that mean. people who watch GBnews probably think”wider society” agrees with them.
nicmason wrote:
I’m not quoting wider society am I?! How would I do that?! I suppose the best spokesperson for wider society would be Boris Johnson, but unfortunately he was not available.
The “we” which you are fixated on is in respect to how most good people would see the horror of the incident, flagrant disregard for the riders’ safety and what will be seen as a lenient punishment generally.
Try getting along more, being
Try getting along more, being less aggressive / dismissive / confrontational.
You might even find that you change people’s mind.
The way that you go about things, all you do is entrench their positions.
‘How to win friends and influence people’. Go on, give it a try. I dare you.
not aggressive at all.
not aggressive at all. disagreeing withthe usual roadcc group think yes.
There was a dangerously
There was a dangerously driven car involved here, that the assailant is supposedly in charge of. He’s not fit to be in charge of a scooter with that temper.
However, I find it hard to believe (I) that this is his first ever time doing something like this and (ii) he appears to gotten the better of a group of 6 riders.
You’re right that touching
You’re right that touching their cars does seem to wind some of the orcs up, but that’s not acceptable. They seem to view a fingertip on their car as a licence to assault the fingertip’s owner. I’m reasonably confident the law doesn’t agree, so enforcement might be nice.
I virtually never ride in a
I virtually never ride in a big group; usually with 1-2 others max. People I know in cycle clubs have explained the large group best practice (split into smaller groups so cars can hop between them) but whenever I’ve been in larger groups (eg Sportive) you can feel the tension rising in the motorists; when they’ve overtaken numerous small groups they start driving like maniacs. Doesn’t seem to be a perfect solution but convincing motorists that their journey time won’t be impaired is probably impossible. I was recently driving behind a group of 8 cyclists, all going pretty fast, on a road with minimal good overtaking places. I sat behind them for a couple of miles knowing there was a good overtaking spot coming up. Mid-overtake, the lead cyclist sprinted off the front and I was stuck as I couldn’t drop back with the main group behind. Got past eventually but not without the oncoming car having to slow down. Thought they’d just ease up a bit as I started to overtake; anyway that’s what I’d do, especially if the car had sat patiently behind waiting for a good, safe overtaking spot.
It was an SUV. They are
It was an SUV. They are very, very proud of them. Need anything else be said?
https://youtu.be/X0oatHLTJy4
OK, Wiltshire police
OK, Wiltshire police spokesman, I can slap one of your police officers in the face, then apologize and I will only be cautioned – is that correct?
After watching so many videos
After watching so many videos like that and then hearing the laughable outcomes, if the police actually get involved, it’s pretty obvious that no matter where you are in this country the police are more likely to be total fuckwitts.
I despair totally at the state of modern policing these days. A colleague used to work in Manchester police but left recently because it got to the point were only 33% of the reported crimes would be investigated. He had to triage the calls and 66% of them would be given a crime number if required and that was it.
It’s not just that thousands of officers have been cut, it’s the fact the ones still left in are lazy feckless idiots and the new recruits are only applying because it’s become such a cushty number. Almost typical civil servant attitudes.
so your colleague chose to
so your colleague chose to help an under resourced police force by leaving it. Well done that man . Very helpful I’m sure
How the hell did this turn
How the hell did this turn into an attack on civil servants?
I found this link. I’m not a
I found this link. I’m not a lawyer and I may be wrong but this is the best I can come up with. It is to do with what they call simple cautions for adults which is I guess what we are talking about here.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/708595/cautions-guidance-2015.pdf
It does seem to back up what the police are saying with one proviso. Cautions cannot be given for any thing involving an offensive weapon. If a car were consideredd an offensive weapon then things would change dramatically. It does seem, yet again, that the police are resticted by the law and the guidance they have to follow.
Finally, a ray of hope. As far as I can make out, a caution goes on a persons criminal record and if a repeat occurs within 2 years a second caution cannot be given. Perhaps this driver will be a bit more careful around cyclists for the next 2 years and by then the behaviour may become habit.
Thanks again to road.cc for followin this up.
Thanks for that, even if it
Thanks for that, even if it does make clear that the police can issue a caution for ABH, but the rest of it, as I read it from the perspective of the victims and being a cyclist myself, pretty well supports prosecution.
Para ten of the introduction is interesting:
“10. In addition, a simple caution may only be given if the decision-maker is
satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect
of conviction if the offender were to be prosecuted.”
So he could be prosecuted and conviction is likely.
And 11:
“11. Furthermore, a simple caution must not be given if the decision-maker
considers that it is in the public interest for the offender to be
prosecuted.”
I would argue most strongly that it is in the public interest that this thug be prosecuted, with the case given much publicity to deter and educate others who think that they know and can enforce the law, when neither is true.
Then there’s this:
“44. Where multiple related offences have been committed, police and
prosecutors should consider the totality of the offending in determining
whether it is appropriate to deal with the case by way of caution.”
There were multiple related offences, so did the police apply this test?
And this:
“54. In deciding whether to offer a simple caution, it is important to establish,
where appropriate and possible, and to take into account:
o The views of any victim about the offence and the proposed method
of disposal;
o The nature of any harm or loss caused by the offence and its
significance to the victim.”
Since it appears that the victims’ views were not established even though it was clearly appropriate and possible, and cannot therefore have been taken into account, the police definitely failed that one.
Black eye = bruising = ABH
Black eye = bruising = ABH not common assault.
Also arguably that this wasn’t common – driver drove past, then specifically waiting to engage in confrontation and punched cyclist – this potentially creates an aggravated assault, so the common assault guidance wouldn’t apply – certainly it would be trivial for the coppers to interpret the situation more seriously in the first instance and go beyond calling this a simple common assault had they wished to!
The Wiltshire Police
The Wiltshire Police spokesman responded, “in cases of common assault with no injury…then an adult caution is deemed a suitable outcome”
Sorry buddy, whatever happened to intent? The intent was clearly to inflict injury on an innocent victim, and even if they didn’t inflict it, the intent was clear, which is in itself a crime. Wiltshire police; ffs, find your balls, ignore the fact that he’s a mate of the chief constable and get this f*cking driver off the road!
If, as claimed by others on this site, a solicitor no less, a caution cannot be given in such circumstances without the agreement of the injured party, and it is clear that there has been no such agreement, so how can a caution be a suitable outcome?
A word to the wise PC Plod; when in a hole, stop digging.
a Wiltshire Police spokesman
The Wiltshire Police spokesman responded, “in cases of common assault with no injury…then an adult caution is deemed a suitable outcome”
But I thought people WERE injured – are they saying you need photos of the bruises?
The assault / slap part of
The assault / slap part of the discussion recieving a caution might be within Police rights or not. But it is the total ignoring of all the actual driving offences including knocking down another cyclist whilst not paying attention or in control of the vehicle that does my nut and is a total dereliction of duty and should receive the main complaints. To state they couldn’t take action on that for the reason stated should make us more scared on the roads of receving no justice if needing any. In Wilshire no visual of a victim means no action can be taken for harm against the victim.
https://assets.publishing
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/708595/cautions-guidance-2015.pdf
The victim
54. In deciding whether to offer a simple caution, it is important to establish,
where appropriate and possible, and to take into account:
o The views of any victim about the offence and the proposed method
of disposal;
o The nature of any harm or loss caused by the offence and its
significance to the victim.
The views of the victim are important but are not conclusive. The
decision to offer a simple caution lies with the police and/or the CPS
who should take account of the views of the victim alongside wider
public interest factors. Care must be taken not to raise the expectations
of a victim whilst seeking their views.
Did the Police follow protocol ?
Worth reading that if people
Worth reading that if people want more background. In particular there is a section on mixed offenses (more than one offense), that doesnt appear to have been considered by Wiltshire fuzz.
My thinking is that it is in
My thinking is that it is in the public interest to prosecute road rage drivers. They are definitely part of the reason that a lot of people consider cycling on roads to be too dangerous, so the police should be clamping down, not utterly ignoring the dangerous driving.
Now imagine it went to court
Now imagine it went to court and a jury of 12 drivers fail to convict the motorist. This is a distinct possibility and an example has been reported on this site. What message does that then send? There is also the cost of the court case.
A caution, if I’ve understood correctly, goes on the drivers criminal record. I would imagine this would be a considerable disincentive for a lot of drivers in general and this driver in particular. All this achieved with no delay, no risk of an aquital and no cost to the public.
Until the law changes to allow a car to be considered as an offesive weapon in these circumstances I feel this is a good result. If a successful prosecution could be guaranteed I would agree with you, as it stands we will have to agree to differ.
PS I hope this appears as a reply to hawkinspeter in the correct place. I am seeing the comments all over the place at the moment.
Bungle_52 wrote:
That should be taken into account, but it appears that the caution was for the “common assault” and they have done nothing about the dangerous driving. I appreciate that the police do a certain amount of second-guessing what will end in a successful prosecution, but personally I think that a charge of careless driving would be successful (dangerous driving seems to be very rarely successful).
It’s also about sending a message that violent behaviour whilst in control of a vehicle is not at any point acceptable.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Probably the same message as failing to prosecute in teh first place, so we’re no worse off.
As for the cost, we could save millions by dispensing with the legal system completely.
Don’t forget this driver now
Don’t forget this driver now has a criminal record. That would be a disincentive for most people, it certainly would be for me.
Now there’s an idea. Just
Now there’s an idea. Just lynch those who park on the pavement / double yellows (with appropriate signage of course…) . Saves a ton of legal admin and they won’t do it again.
Bungle_52 wrote:
— Bungle_52Except that the guidance on issuing cautions says:
“10. In addition, a simple caution may only be given if the decision-maker is
satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect
of conviction if the offender were to be prosecuted.”
So it is possible that they would be acquitted, but there is definitely a realistic prospect of a conviction, which is all any prosecution can expect.
Fair point but then there is
Fair point but then there is the old saying “a bird in the hand etc.”
Once again, this is the
Once again, this is the perfect time to repeat Chris Boardman’s ongoing assertation that what we REALLY need in Britain are the Lowlands’ Presumed Liabilty Traffic Laws (which require EVERY road user to look out for those road users more vulnerable than themselves &, in the first instance, presumes that the driver/rider of the bigger vehicle is at fault unless recklessness by the other party is evident). That way ALL road users take care because they know that the Law will pile down on them if they don’t.
Separate road infrastructure demands taxpayers’ £investment (and can come later as a life-enhancing refinement) but new legislation requires a short period of Parliamentary time (an ongoing public expense in any event) and absolutely no other capital investment. It would have the largest possible effect as quickly as possible. Nothing else could save more lives/injuries for as little effort.
Just Get It Done.
https://youtu.be/zq28fU2AuMU
herohirst wrote:
I hadn’t seen that Chris Boardman video before – excellent stuff.
I’m still puzzled as to why
I’m still puzzled as to why the police aren’t pursuing the appalling driving. If someone drove like that during a driving test, would it still be a pass?
The police reply to road.cc
The police reply to road.cc says that ‘In line with national policy … common assault with no injury …’
The victim, Mr Short, stated that he had a black eye. Presumably has made an allegation of assault and a crime report will have been generated. Also, the police should have preserved evidence by way of photographing the injury.
Under crime recording standards I believe that this should have been recorded as an assault with Actual Bodily Harm, which the charging standards would dilute down to a Common Assault.
If I was Mr Short I would be asking for a copy of his witness statement and crime report.
There appear to be only two
There appear to be only two possible explanations for the failure of the Wiltshire police; either they are utterly, totally incompetent at doing their one job of protecting the public, or the driver is a member of the same lodge as the chief constable.
I can’t see a date for this, so I’m hoping that it is really recent and that there will be time for the police to revise their decision and to prosecute this dangerous, violent thug to the limit of the law. What is it about driving a car that gives you immunity from prosecution for an assault, not using the car, but fists; totally absurd.
I’m hoping that any road.cc readers in Wiltshire will be contacting the police and the Police and Crime Commissioner and demanding an immediate arrest and anything else they can do immediately, like suspend his licence if possible.
I’m sure road.cc will be keeping us informed when the police respond.
EDIT: If the authorites let this go, put me down for a few quid for a private prosecution.
I’ll second that
I’ll second that
“We are committed to
“We are committed to providing a high level of service for all victims of crime”
Let us know when you start then.
Leaving aside the assault
Leaving aside the assault part, this is clearly a case of dangerous driving as defined in law:
“The offence of dangerous driving under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is committed when the defendant’s driving falls far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious that driving in that way would be dangerous – section 2A of the RTA 1988.
Some typical examples from court cases of dangerous driving are:
racing, going too fast, or driving aggressively;
ignoring traffic lights, road signs or warnings from passengers;
overtaking dangerously;”
I am astonished that this wasn’t considered by the police.
The driver is clearly not fit to be in charge of a car and should be disqualified and have to pass a test to ensure they understand the standards required of a competent driver.
The sentencing guidelines are here and seem highly appropriate: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/dangerous-driving/
A caution may or may not be appropriate for the assault but cannot be appropriate for the driving offence.
I suspect that the police
I suspect that the police ignored the driving and concentrated on Mr Short’s assault.
As for the second victim, Mrs Short, was she recklessly assaulted or the victim of a road traffic collision? I would like to know how the police recorded that.
Whatever, the ‘the victim wasn’t on camera’ is complete BS!
RobHowes wrote:
I’d agree it was dangerous driving and fits the description, however, the police know that a court is unlikely to convict for all but the worst examples (think joyrider on police camera action), because it means a minimum 12 month ban. Also, the police are able to bring a prosecution for careless driving without involving the CPS. You would have thought a careless driving charge could be pursued.
As for the caution. It’s a criminal record, that will show up on some database checks and depending on your job, you may need to inform your employer. It may also have to be declared on some job applications and when travelling abroad.
So, if you’re in a job that requires police checks and frequent travelling, it could be devastating. If you’re self-employed, not working, in a job that doesn’t require police checks or a career criminal, it will probably have no impact at all.
Weirdly the overtake was the
Weirdly the overtake was the one part I was impressed with (well the bits we saw). TBH on first viewing of the video I actually expected the following car to badly overtake them and be the “star” of the show until they all suddenly braked and had to avoid the car. The rest of his driving was dangerous though.
“We are committed to
“We are committed to providing a high level of service for all victims of crime,…..”
Add lying to the list of Wiltshire police’s failings.
“Add lying to the list of
“Add lying to the list of Wiltshire police’s failings”
Add this to the list eburtthebikes police freemason obsessions
nicmason wrote:
What does that have to do with freemasonry?
I think nic being a valued
I think nic being a valued defender of the police knows all about that though. After all his middle name begins with F.
No thats my brother. master
No thats my brother. master of the Grand Lodge head of the police and prime mover behind the anti cyclist conspiracy endemic in Wiltshire policing apparently.
Meanwhile the roadcc comments section moves smoothly into armchair lawyers holding forth.
I’m amazed no one has said prima facie or even open and shut yet.
Says the person who wrote: “I
Says the person who wrote: “I think you’ll find law doesnt do what might have happened just what did happen.”
Various counter examples have been given to this ‘armchair lawyer’ claim.
nicmason wrote:
Ha! We knew it!
eburtthebike quote
eburtthebike quote
“As I’ve previously suggested, is either in the same lodge as the chief constable, or possibly a police themselves or a close relative.”
nicmason wrote:
I have to admit, it’s a very long list, but at least I’m not you.
likewise . I’m very glad i’m
likewise . I’m very glad i’m not you. hang on there’s a freemason under the bed.
We are committed to providing
We are committed to providing a high level of service for all victims of crime
Wiltshire is looking similar to Lancashire. I have seen language like this from Lancashire, where they think that saying is better than doing and where the sentiment bears no relation to the actual actions of the force. I am presently enduring an alliance between the defence and Lancashire Constabulary, which seems intent on sabotaging its own prosecution of a BMW driver who committed the same white line crossing offence in the same place twice in 2 days, both on video. There’s no doubt about the guilt, or my speed which is over 20 mph when he overtook extremely closely. The offence was 18 months ago, and all the statements were signed over a year ago. The hearing is due on 1st October- I only heard about that by a detailed enquiry, and the police said I didn’t need to attend. Therefore, I decided to attend and as soon as I told them a spate of dodging and diving began: I was told the case ‘may be taken out of area’; the defence began demanding evidence which doesn’t exist (rear camera- they’ll be demanding overhead drone video next) and then they demanded video without the GPS (this also doesn’t exist- the GPS was burned on) and claimed they ‘couldn’t submit the video for ‘independent’ (a misnomer- they mean defence) expert opinion with the GPS attached! The police then claimed the evidence could be thrown out or the case thrown out because of the absence of non-GPS video. This is all complete tripe as it makes no difference to the video, being all on the left side. The obvious aim is to rubbish the highly accurate GPS speedometer showing my speed, even though the video makes it obvious that I’m going much faster than 10. It’s quite difficult to battle the defence and the prosecution at the same time! I have made it very clear that I intend to be present at the hearing…
Isn’t it funny that they seem
Isn’t it funny that they seem quite happy to use crappy CCTV footage when they’re actually interested in prosecuting?
If I were in a generous mood, I’d explain it as them thinking that you had post-processed the footage to add GPS, but they don’t seem to have acted in good faith with yourself previously.
As I said, they’ve had the
As I said, they’ve had the video for well over a year and have never questioned the GPS data before- neither has it been questioned on any of the more than numerous videos I have submitted. My guess is that the nutter BMW driver has 6 or 9 points on his licence already, and isn’t completely sure he can retain his licence with 12 points just by saying he needs the car to get to the shops a mile away. I can’t work out why LC is trying so hard to get him off an offence with only 3 points at risk.
I would have thought it
I would have thought it should have been the CPS involved now and not the LP doing all the demanding of evidence. Maybe ask the LC what the CPS solicitor needs or suggest and get that person to speak to you.
The person doing the asking
The person doing the asking was a legally qualified ‘Court Presentation Officer, Safer Roads Unit’ whose email heading bears the LC crest (with the words: ‘cyclists can sod off out of Lancashire’ in Latin) and it’s a LC email address. No mention of CPS anywhere. Maybe they resort to an un-named person at CPS when they want to explain a decision to do nothing? I haven’t had one of those yet- the usual modus operandi is a refusal to reply or tell you anything
Oh, it seems they are
Oh, it seems they are employed by the Police to bring traffic and minor crimes to the courts. Which is weird as the whole point of the CPS is to be independent of the Police.
But not just them, it seems those similar roles are also used for when prosecuting parents for school attendence and other things the Local Authorities need someone in court for.
Looking at the job role supplied by TVP compared to WMP as well, 23 k a year to deal with 12k cases a year. Where WMP at least asks for some legal experience and are paying two grades higher. So essentially used to free up “real” police and “real” solicitors from having to prosecute offences and probably massively overworked.
Sounds like you’re up against
Sounds like you’re up against it. So easy to pick off individuals, unfortunately. I seem to remember that you are a member of British Cycling, if so have you asked them to get involved?
Any way, I admire your perseverence and wish you luck. I look forward to hearing your report on the proceedings you witness.
Which mags court is it wtjs?
Which mags court is it wtjs?
Presumably a first hearing – to enter a plea – as opposed to a trial, as you haven’t been called as a witness.
If I was Mrs Short I would
If I was Mrs Short I would put a claim in against the driver’s motor insurance company. I’m sure that the video evidence would be ‘interesting’ to say the least 🙂
So next insurance renewal this guy will have a previous conviction (the caution for assault) and a blameworthy accident to disclose. Expensive!
It looked to me like one of
It looked to me like one of the riders tried to ‘adjust’ the wing mirror. I’m reliably informed that isn’t the way it’s done.
Did any of you see the
Did any of you see the Facebook post from “Idiot U.K. Drivers Exposed” group? You only have to read a few comments to understand how depressingly bad the attitudes are with the embarrassing abundance of morons willingly defending the drivers actions. You’d have thought the group name might have helped them work it out! Ignorance in all it’s glory.
Now imagine the country
Now imagine the country meltdown if it was a cyclist that punched the driver. Utter contempt for cyclists shown by the police, it smacks of “well I can understand why this person might have got aggressive”. The driver should be charged with a criminal offence. Road. cc should continue to assist with applying pressure. If the driver gets off with a “a little chat”, it will send a clear message to all the other Clarksonite cunts that its ok bully and be aggressive to cyclists because the Police will do nothing.
Utter contempt for cyclists
Utter contempt for cyclists shown by the police, it smacks of “well I can understand why this person might have got aggressive”
It’s not just suggestive of that, it is that. The police are always desperately seeking excuses for whatever a driver does, whether it’s close-passing (deemed in Lancashire to be non-existent unless there is serious injury to the cyclist) or crashing through red lights 2 seconds after they changed. However, in the interest of balance, I should admit that well over a month after the nutter BMW driver threatened to ‘f*****g flatten’ me and ‘you will get knocked off!’, after I remonstrated with him after a close pass, Lancashire Constabulary has claimed that they will be taking a statement soon.
This might be my Scots blood
This might be my Scots blood emoting here but if that had been me getting punched by the driver, I wouldn’t be bothering with a police report, I’d be giving the driver as good, likely better, than I got..
When the sticky bottle goes
When the sticky bottle goes wrong….
Rick_Rude wrote:
I don’t think holding the mirror was a good idea at all. I’d feel safer with both hands on my handlebars and just keep at the same pace by the side. Drivers can get really irate if you touch their car which I think is some psychological demonstration that their personal space expands to their car.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Psychology Today – I Am My Car
The Beeb have just picked up
The Beeb have just picked up this Wiltshire rozzer fail :
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-wiltshire-58558802
Grab your popcorn.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Okay – that’s an interesting edit they performed on the video and a narrative change with “when they caught up with the car” rather than “when the driver tried to cause a collision with a brake check on the cyclists”.
It’s unbelievable that the
It’s unbelievable that the Police didn’t at least issue a fixed penalty CD10 for driving without due care and attention in addition to the Police caution for assault.
I’ve used the link at the bottom of this article to complain to the Wiltsire Police. It’s not good enough to let this type of behaviour go.
If it makes any of you feel
If it makes any of you feel slightly better, a ‘caution’ is a formal admission of guilt leading to the scally in question getting a criminal record. It’s not an off-the-record ticking off – the euphemism for that is ‘providing advice’.
He will have to disclose this if he applies to most jobs, and it will actively cause him problems if he works, or wants to work, in healthcare, education, government, or any area of law/legal services. It may also restrict his ability to travel abroad.
(Not a lawyer)
a ‘caution’ is a formal
a ‘caution’ is a formal admission of guilt leading to the scally in question getting a criminal record
I’m prepared to believe this because of the extraordinary dodges deployed by Lancashire Constabulary in avoiding any action which ‘goes on the record’. The latest trick, which I admit to describing here before, is to send to the offending driver in a really close pass ‘educational material derived from the Highway Code’, with no mention of any warning letter. They hope I won’t notice and will just assume that there really was a warning letter. Th police have created numerous ways of appearing to have done something- a ‘something’ which has no deterrent effect whatsoever and which involved negligible work
Ahbugger wrote:
A caution is considered to be “spent” immediately, so it wouldn’t need to be disclosed when applying for most jobs and wouldn’t appear on a basic DBS check. It would appear on a standard or enhanced DBS check, so could prevent you from working with children or vunerable adults.
(Also not a lawyer)
Tom_77 wrote:
Spot on. Found a good web resource here.
Some solace that he’s probably not going to be driving a taxi in the next 6 years.
Ahbugger wrote:
It looks like a simple caution is spent immediately, but will stay on a DBS check for a number of years. So it will cause a problem for the specific sorts of job you mention, but he won’t have to disclose it for other jobs.
(A lawyer, but not a criminal one)
Still fuming regarding police
Still fuming regarding police inaction about life threatening dangerous driving, and assault often when supported by video evidence I spotted the attached article. It contains a video of a violent moron kicking his dog.
Needless to say the Police are now investigating.
Makes you realise that as cyclists we’re less important than domestic animals.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sickening-footage-captures-scots-dog-24988383
Uh oh!!……..the video and
Uh oh!!……..the video and story have appeared on the Daily Mail website
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9997733/VIDEO-Swindon-cyclist-punched-face-road-rage-incident.html
Its on the Sun, too
Its on the Sun, too
Shades wrote:
You made me feel dirty for actually following that link!
However, they’ve got the complete video and more complete quotes from Mr Short, so they’re doing a better job than the BBC.
Although apparently his wife
Although apparently his wife fell in front of the car (must be imaginging the initial crunch before he fall then. ) Then states cycling organisations have lobbied the governement for Highway code changes.
0 comments so far. Let’s see
0 comments so far. Let’s see how many in 2 hours time !
Ok, I think we can do it in
Ok, I think we can do it in relay if we are careful. 4 Comments as of now. Three indicating that the Police should have done more.
One criticising the cyclists for riding in a train (although states two a breast is not a problem just the length). He then goes on to state he rides a bike alone but ensures he pulls in like a tractor as it is his duty to keep traffic flowing smoothly.
Whilst so far, they all have more likes then dislikes, guess which comment has almost a 1000 likes to 18 dislikes?
Quote:
Is he a traffic policeman? Why does he think he has responsibility for the choices made by other road users?
Only 15 comments
Only 15 comments
Although we got the completely irrelevant ‘Time to start making insurance compulsory for using bikes on roads. They should be taxed in the same way cars are too.’
hirsute wrote:
157 comments now the gammons are out in force!
Be warned – not nice reading.
OMG what is the matter with
OMG what is the matter with ‘people’ why can’t they just be nice. The DM comments section is bad, really bad, I need a hug.
peted76 wrote:
“Mr. Squirrel hugs you” by nicubunu.photo is licensed with CC BY-SA 2.0.
@HP Count me in – should one
@HP Count me in – should one of your regular squirrels not be around
Is that a new profile picture
Is that a new profile picture? Noice!
Mr Squirrel looks more like
Mr Squirrel looks more like he’s about to rugby tackle me. Perhaps for cycling in a PSPO area.
Dave Gorman started doing his
Dave Gorman started doing his found poetry on his Radio show/ podcast initially from mainly DM comments on the news of the day. He did continue it into his standup and TV shows as well.
Classic Schrodinger’s cyclist
Classic Schrodinger’s cyclist here
“Just driven through Richmond Park with cyclists passing me because I was driving at the allowed speed of 20 mph obviously not going fast enough for them, then came across a group of 12 riding 2 abreast in a long line not letting any car over take them, they think they own the roads but pay no part in the up keep of them.”
The irony of driving through a park was lost on her.
peted76 wrote:
I just looked and there are 542 comments
The level of ignorance is
The level of ignorance is pitying
‘road tax’
‘you should not ride 2 abreast’ – ‘it puts car drivers in a dangerous situation’
‘Many veer out avoiding a drain or pothole ignoring cars behind them.’
‘cyclists need to be fined for being caught on camera blatantly breaking the law also.’
‘I had 5 abreast yesterday.’
I don’t think any people commenting made had any idea how to overtake safely and failed to understand it wasn’ safe to overtake a single rider on that section.
I’m curious, but pessimistic
I’m curious, but pessimistic – Anyone seen a sniff of a new reply from the PCC or Wiltshire fuzz?