A video appears to show a cyclist almost being deliberately run over by a driver after falling off his bike.
The rider is seen getting to his feet when the motorist seemingly tries to drive into him.
Luckily, the cyclist manages to get out of the way just in time but the driver then goes straight over his bike before speeding away.
The video contains strong language…
The video was picked up by @Hackney Cyclist, who commented: “Just a London driver inches away from breaking a kids leg because he thinks he is playing GTA.”
The rider who posted the video on Instagram gave some context to the incident when people who watched it asked him what had happened.
He said: “Other riders were pissing [the driver] off and I clicked his mirror and fell off so he ran me over [because] he was angry at the time.”
Some people on Twitter commented asking for a video showing the full context to the incident suggesting the cyclist might have been riding dangerously, however as one user, Philip Williams said: “Whatever went beforehand is irrelevant.
“This driver deliberately turned towards the cyclist before straightening up using his vehicle as a weapon.”
Yet another one. “There could be a very good reason why the driver in the SUV felt he needed to run over the young man on the bicycle.” https://t.co/ibBtWZPzGV
— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) May 29, 2021
A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said they were unable to provide any more details about the incident, but they are aware of it and are investigating.
146 thoughts on “Shocking video appears to show motorist driving into cyclist who fell off his bike”
No matter what happened
No matter what happened before, using a 2T vehicle as a weapon is inexcusable and reckless.
hirsute wrote:
No, it isn’t reckless, it is an assault with a deadly weapon; when are the authorities going to treat it as such?
Unless someone’s about to
Unless someone’s about to smash the driver side window in.
Then you’d drive in a
Then you’d drive in a straight ahead , there would be no reason to endanger someone else.
open_roads wrote:
hardly relevant to this case is it? In any case I’m not sure that there is a legal defence for using physical violence ot prevent or in response to damage to property – of which I’m glad, having been accused of deliberately knocking a wing mirror off whilst filtering in teh past,,,
hirsute wrote:
Maybe its not the way you saw it.
https://youtu.be/_SsccRkLLzU
I’d love to see 2 minutes of
I’d love to see 2 minutes of footage before that particular incident. Whatever went beforehand is not irrelevant.
I don’t doubt they were
I don’t doubt they were annoying the driver – the guy admits as much in the quote in the article. But could you please let us know what behaviour you believe would justify using a two ton vehicle as a weapon?
AidanR wrote:
I don’t believe I have justified or tried to condone the driver’s behaviour in any way – I’d simply like to see the unclipped, full footage before forming an informed opinion. No point in speculating about what may or may not have happened.
If there’s nothing that could
If there’s nothing that could justify using a vehicle as a weapon, there’s no need to speculate about what may or may not have happened… like you did in your first post:
“For all you know they might have been threatening with knives or damaging the car – it looks like Khan’s London after all.”
I didn’t say there was
I didn’t say there was nothing that could justify using a vehicle as a weapon.
There are plenty of things that could justify it, like the things I mentioned (which were meant as general examples based on the ubiquity of weapons in Khan’s London, rather than hypothesising) – but I don’t want to speculate about this particular incident unless I see the full footage.
Ahahaha! I’m not speculating,
Ahahaha! I’m not speculating, I’m giving general examples. Have you considered a career in politics 😉
Why do you need to see more
Why do you need to see more footage? What difference would it actually make? There is absolutely nothing that the cyclist could have done that would come close to justifying the actions of that driver. Even retaliatory, self-defence actions have to be proportionate and using a car is not proportionate.
sapperadam wrote:
Because that’s what sensible, non-reactionary people do. They uncover the evidence, weigh it up with an unbiased mind, and use it to decide whether the driver’s actions were justified and reasonable.
You say there is nothing the person riding a bike could have done to justify the driver’s actions. I say that is patently false – there’s a vast array of crimes the cyclist might have committed that would have justified what happened. Without seeing the full footage, it’s simply not possible to speculate further.
No there aren’t, because even
No there aren’t, because even if the guy had done something illegal or threatening, the driver’s response would be vigilantism. Just because someone else commits a crime (which, to emphasise, is pure speculation) doesn’t give you a free pass to commit one.
The only possible exception is an action in self defence, but that’s not the case here as the driver could have driven away without aiming at the cyclist.
AidanR wrote:
If he was acting to prevent a crime or protect property then he may have a defence (Criminal Law Act); e.g. on the other side of the car that we can’t see. Of course, there’s nothing in the video to suggest that’s the case.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
No dammit, sensible non-reactionary people attack people using their motor cars!
None whatsoever, but if you
None whatsoever, but if you flout the laws and lack common decency then you can’t expect others to comply.
I haven’t watched all their
I haven’t watched all their videos, but other than one going through a red light I couldn’t see any flouting of laws. I did see some damn impressive bike handling skills though – I’m a bit jealous.
AidanR wrote:
It’s definitely “Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling”, could be “Dangerous cycling”, and there’s also “Antisocial behaviour” to consider.
alexls wrote:
It’s definitely “Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling”, could be “Dangerous cycling”, and there’s also “Antisocial behaviour” to consider.— AidanR
You mean like trying to run people over….
Smiffi wrote:
That’s precisely why the driver’s actions were unacceptable and inexcusable…..
My money would be on gang of
My money would be on gang of yoofs on bikes filtering or wheelying through the motor traffic at the lights. Not entirely sure *what* would justify driving over the bike like that, though? Dangerous driving, anyone??
Unless you see the full
Unless you see the full footage (which was obviously clipped on purpose) you can’t draw any conclusions. For all you know they might have been threatening with knives or damaging the car – it looks like Khan’s London after all.
*Edit* If you look closely you’ll see a dickhead on a bike ahead of the lights trying to block in the car. This is what happens when you have an entirely lawless city I guess.
Do you always get your news
Do you always get your news from the Daily Mail?
Don’t read the Mail, although
Don’t read the Mail, although I believe it was pivotal in getting to the truth in the disgraceful BBC interview between Martin Bashir and Diana.
Just out of interest – assuming you can read at all, what’s your favourite news source(s)?
Oh dear. You were doing so
Oh dear. You were doing so well, such a shame your trolling has relapsed to what can only be described as poor, very poor. Must try much harder.
So apparently 5 years means
So apparently 5 years means it is Khans London. How about 10 years of Tories Auterity cutting funding left right and centre which means youth and after school actrivities lost their funding? How about 10 years of Austerity cuts which means Police have had to cut back lots of funding? Nope, it is Khans London at fault for someone being almost run over as a driver decides if someone is under my wheels bad luck.
Why Khan? Because he’s the
Why Khan? Because he’s the mayor that campaigned to remove stop and search, has undermined the police, has presided over a gigantic rise in violent crime, and spends his days tweeting and posturing with blimps rather than leading.
London needs a Rudi Giuliani style figure to clean it up.
I don’t think Rudi has
I don’t think Rudi has covered himself in glory recently…
To clarify I meant the old
To clarify I meant the old Rudi as NY mayor, not the new one!
So 20k less Police Officers
So 20k less Police Officers in the UK has nothing to do with rising crime? The closure of Youth Centres and a 70% reduction in spending there since 2010 has nothing to do with youths deciding to gang together and expend energy antisocially?
Nope, it is all Khans fault and nothing outside at all. And btw, I’m not saying Khan hasn’t got certain stuff wrong, just that it is not all down to him either. I suppose he could have spent money on a Garden Bridge, illegal water cannons or his bit on the side.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
You keep mentioning the Tories and 2010. Here’s a graph of crime in London since 2010 (2020 are latest figures, emphasis mine, source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/380963/london-crime-rate/):
Yep, ,matches the UK one as
Yep, ,matches the UK one as well. Unless you are saying that 2million extra crimes since 2015 only happened in London in 2020?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283069/crimes-in-the-uk/
Oh look, London’s change in
Oh look, London’s change in crime rate mirrors that of the UK as a whole. I presume that’s Khan’s fault too?
AidanR wrote:
Er no. If you look at the charts, you can see clearly that crime fell in London from the period 2010-16 under Johnson, whereas it rose over the rest of the UK. Today, while it’s true that there is an element of covariance, crime is rising more rapidly in London than over the rest of the UK under Khan, which is all the more amazing when you consider the degree of gentrification London has seen over the same period and its relative prosperity and growth vs the rest of the country.
As law-abiding people abandon Khan’s dystopian nightmare, and the government (correctly) focuses more resources away from the capital, expect the crime differential to accelerate even further.
And I’m pretty sure last week
And I’m pretty sure last week it was all these LTN’s that was the sole reason the Tories got pretty much the same percentage of the vote in the London Mayor elections as last time.
Anyway, maybe this spending chart on the London Councils website (So all three parties if the Libs have any) also goes along way to show the differences in spending in London in 2014 to 2020 which can show why crime is rising. Remember closure of alternative facilities can also send bored kids out on the streets or mean people being treated for addictions aren’t helped so fall back into their old ways.
And I’m, surprised you also haven’t accused Cycling Mikey and Jeremey Vine as all the attacks on cyclists they prompt must be putting the figures up massively. It will be the perfect trifecta for you.
You always need to compare
Crime rates rose from 82.36 to 101.46 from 2015/16 to 2019/20 in London – 23%.
Crime rates rose from 74.7 to 96.4 from 2015/16 to 2019/20 in the UK – 29%.
Damn that Khan.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Just a coincidence; it would have been much worse under Corbyn.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
What, drain the swamp?…..
Nigel Garrage wrote:
£600M cut from the Met budget by coalition/Tory government since 2010 and demanding another 400M by 2023. Violent crime has risen across the nation (again, under a Tory government) and in London at a far lower level than many other cities and regions. All Khan did with the Trump blimp, to which one assumes you are referring, was refuse to ban it, he didn’t “posture” with it. Like every other major politician he has a Twitter account (probably not even run by himself) to keep the public informed of what he’s doing on their behalf. If he didn’t people like you would doubtless accuse him of hiding from the public. Other than that, spot on.
Haha jog on – Khan even
Haha jog on – Khan even recently bought the blimp to display in a museum. Who needs police when you’ve spent the money to get a blimp on display?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Typical bollocks from the poundshop Socrapi; the Museum of London bought the blimp for its London Protests collection. The GLA appoints half of the museum’s directors (the other half being appointed by the CoLC). Khan has not the slightest say over the museum’s acquisitions policy.
And who funds the Museum of
And who funds the Museum of London? Oh, the Mayor of London and his party. You’ll get there in the end. Out of interest – leaving aside who was responsible for the purchase (and it does beg the question exactly what you think the Mayor is responsible for, as according to you he’s just a helpless bystander), do you think buying the blimp was in the public interest?
The museum laughably claimed that it was in the public interest by ranking it alongside the women’s suffrage movement ?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
You really can’t be this obtuse, can you? The MoL is run by an independent board of directors and funded jointly by the GLA (whomever holds power at City Hall at any given time, not just one party) and the Corporation of London, the GLA has no executive power over its decisions. You and your rightist ilk continually deride the BBC as being leftwing, but who funds the BBC? Oh, the Prime Minister and his party (as you would say). Go and take a civics course and come back and comment when you understand the mechanisms of corporate governance in state and city-run institutions.
Rubbish – as Sadiq Khan
Rubbish – as Sadiq Khan himself said:
“From the outset of my Mayoralty, I pledged to make culture a core priority and I’m proud that this is the biggest ever cultural investment made by any Mayor of London to date. The world’s greatest city deserves the world’s greatest museum, which is why I’m delighted to announce £70 million of funding for the new Museum of London. This is on top of the £110m funding announced by the City of London Corporation.
“This major landmark project will be a jewel in our crown. It will reveal 2,000 years of fascinating London history for Londoners, visitors and every schoolchild in the capital. It will rejuvenate West Smithfield, protecting its heritage while also creating a dynamic new public space – strengthening London’s credentials as an international powerhouse for culture.”
I call the purchase of the blimp quid pro quo for “the biggest ever cultural investment by any Mayor of London to date”.
You didn’t answer my question by the way – do you think buying the blimp was a good use of public funds?
Sorry, where’s the bit where
Sorry, where’s the bit where he says “And I look forward to directing its agenda and overseeing its acquisitions”? If public body funding equals control, why are you lot always frothing about the BBC? Surely as it’s government funded they control it?
As it happens no I don’t think it was a good use of public funds, but I also know that however much you say “rubbish” Khan had nothing to do with it and so your assertion “Khan even recently bought the blimp to display in a museum” is a lie.
And with that I’m out, any further response will elicit none from me. As Professor Dawkins so sagely remarked, don’t bother arguing with idiots; the best you can hope for is to say you won an argument with an idiot.
And as Socrates (yep Socrates
And as Socrates (yep Socrates) said: “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers.”
Have a great day ?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Oh, this is so brilliant I must immediately break my resolve not to reply. Socrates never said anything of the sort, that quote has only been around since 2008 and only very, very stupid people (Eric Trump being its most notable populariser) trying to look clever claim it was Socrates. Thank you for the best laugh of the year so far.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/socrates-debate-lost-slander-loser/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/oct/08/viral-image/no-socrates-didnt-call-slander-tool-losers/
How do you, Snopes or
How do you, Snopes or Politifact know what Socrates said? Clearly he couldn’t have said those exact words as English didn’t exist.
The last thing I saw on Politifact was a rating for the Covid lab leak theory in China… “The claim is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire!”… how did that “fact check” play out?
So if I want to attribute this wise quote to Socrates, I will! (I just found it amusing given his namesake on road.cc, but I forgot your sense of humour bypass)
Nigel Garrage wrote:
That is utterly hilarious in its desperation. As Confucius said, when a man has had his arse handed him on a plate, he’d be well advised to zip it instead of making himself look even more stupid (obviously we can’t know he said that because English didn’t exist but if I want to attribute it to him I will).
I’m glad I’ve made you laugh!
I’m glad I’ve made you laugh! Take it easy.
So because people use all
So because people use all available “current” facts to debunk something mentioned online, we shouldn’t believe them in anything else? So not one Texan has died from Covid in three months since they lifted the mask mandate? So we are all being tracked by 5G masts if you have had the vaccine?
My totally unsupported facts include Our Nige here is our old “friend” booboo and DaveDave is our other old “friend” Socrati. (Note the spelling OurNige).
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
Let me guess – tried, but failed?
The problem with these fact checking websites is that they are selective in what they fact check and show bias in their articles – i.e. they are no different than other journalistic sources, which has given rise to people fact checking the fact checkers, and presumably people fact checking the fact checkers of the fact checkers!
It’s easy to take things from Facebook and Twitter, and declare that they are incorrect, but tbh it says more about an individual that they might believe complete nonsense in the first place about 5g, shape shifting chameleons, or whatever the latest conspiracy theory is.
But that’s why these biased fact-checkers are so dangerous. By taking the Covid Lab-leak theory, which has always had sensible sources backing it, journalists and (a minority of) scientists behind it, and declaring it “a conspiracy theory” simply because Donald Trump and Fox News have amplified it is complete irresponsible. Lumping something so serious in with 5g, microchips etc simply gives succour to those who believe in conspiracy theories.
A cursory glance at Politifact shows its implicit bias – for example very recently Joe Biden stated “Now, 50% of all America, more than any other country, is fully vaccinated”. This statement is entirely and demonstrably false. 50% of America isn’t fully vaccinated, and other countries have vaccinated more people. That it is faring well in vaccinations is entirely down to Donald Trump. Yet, rather than giving Biden’s lies a “Pants on Fire” rating (bear in mind that’s what it gave the completely rational Covid Lab leak theory), it gives Joe Biden a “Mostly False” rating. Why? How can anyone take this seriously as a fact-checking service?
“Let me guess – tried, but
“Let me guess – tried, but failed?”
The press release stated they have tried to contact the owners of the other blimp. They didn’t state anything else. Maybe the owners wanted too much money? Maybe they didn’t want to have it in a museum. Maybe it has been destroyed. Lots of reasons why but as it took 2 years between the museum mentioning getting them in and mentioning that they now have the Blimp it could still be negotiated.
“By taking the Covid Lab-leak theory, which has always had sensible sources backing it, journalists and (a minority of) scientists behind it, and declaring it “a conspiracy theory”
There is a difference between stating the virus is manmade which is what you linked to, and whether it was one discovered and accidently leaked from the lab which is what the investigations are trying to find. The former has very little buy-in from the whole scientific community due to them all having access to the Genomes and not seeing anything manmade in it at all.
“That it is faring well in vaccinations is entirely down to Donald Trump“
Well I would like to know how Donald “I didn’t tell anyone I was vaccinated in January, because my fanbase doesn’t believe in them” Trump is the total reason they are faring so well with nothing down to the actual logistics and addtional purchaes under Biden. Donald “This will disappear in two weeks” Trump did help rush through developments by removing some USA guidelines but then so did alot of other countries worldwide. Still Donald “HydroxyChloroquin” Trump also caused unneccesary deaths during this and since as he spouted wrong nonsense about treatments which, as shown with his Voting nonsense, his fanbase believes him not matter what he states.
Anyway thanks for confirming you are Booboo-no-clue. I mean he was pretty much one of the only people on this site that swallowed everything from Donald “Lets Inject Disinfectant to Clean Covid Out of the Body” Trump.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Did you mean Socrati, cos that sounds
like some of his rubbish?
You didn’t answer my question
You didn’t answer my question by the way – do you think buying the blimp was a good use of public funds?
They tried to get the Khan Blimp as well to show the same thing. Personally I don’t rate much “art” etc but I suspect from reading the point of it being a memory of protests in London that they will have other things like Poll Tax riots memorabilia, newspaper headlines and artwork and other items on show. But something that attracts visitors to a museum (and Tourists when that area recovers) or £320k on illegal to use Water Cannons. I wonder what the bigger waste of public funds will be.
But you have not mentioned
But you have not mentioned the ridiculous amount wasted on the non existent garden bridge.
Well as Khan might be doing
Well as Khan might be doing the same with the new Tunnel, I thought I would just pick something which is still more then the blimp costs but also we have examples on both sides.
I had to pay to visit one of
I had to pay to visit one of the exhibitions – am I due a refund?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
course they did. They’re yooves innit
Yeah, someone’s tried to run someone over, but look over there! kid with a bike!
If you mean drivers running over kids who’ve pissed them off, then that’s happening all over the country, and nothing to do with Khan.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Do you mean the one on the far side of the junction who only makes an attempt to block the car after the assault and criminal damage? because no one is blocking the car before he drives over the bike.
Amazed that the kid can ride the bike after it wa driven over, looks like the wheels would have passed over the rear mech, definitely over the wheels
Look at the uploaders other
Look at the uploaders other videos.
There’s no excuse whatsoever
There’s no excuse whatsoever for using a vehicle as a weapon, that swerve was an attempt to get him!
But, watching the other videos I can just imaging how this incident occurred. Sometimes you just have to close you eyes and ignore what’s going on, even if it does mean you’re going to get a damaged car. Unfortunately some people, either through fear or anger will overreact irresponsibley. Intentionally baiting people will inevitably end in disaster, because eventually you’ll meet someone who is more reckless than you.
Most sensible thing I’ve read
Most sensible thing I’ve read all day Smiffi – my old man always said “even if you’re completely in the right, don’t get into a fight with some random stranger on the road, because one day you’ll meet a complete thicko who doesn’t think as much to life as you do”.
Those kids riding round taunting cars (assuming that’s all they were doing) are bound to come a cropper sooner or later. They need their mums to send them to their rooms.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Ah, the poor cars being taunted, forcing the driver into a disproportionate revenge attack. Property crime is not a valid excuse for this kind of risk to life and limb.
I’ve experienced this kind of wheelie swarm while driving. It’s very simple to deal with: stop your car and wait for it to pass.
I feel like I’m going round
I feel like I’m going round in circles here. I’m neither condoning nor condemning the driver’s actions as there isn’t enough evidence.
But the statement that if you taunt enough people, one day you’re going to come a cropper is just self-evident. Jump on enough logs in a crocodile infested river and one day a log might just have a snap at you.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Probably best if you lie down in a darkened room until you feel normal. It’s bank holiday , so you can take your time….
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I’m making the point (not well enough) that it’s not the car that is taunted (if anything / anyone is). It’s the driver. And they then lose control of themselves.
If I walk down the street with a sledgehammer and some teenager on a bike wheelies past me yelling that I couldn’t hurt a fly with that hammer, and repeats that 20 times, do I have licence to belt him with it? No. What is it about cars that allows people to use them as weapons?
TheBillder wrote:
TheBillder wrote:
I’m making the point (not well enough) that it’s not the car that is taunted (if anything / anyone is). It’s the driver. And they then lose control of themselves.
If I walk down the street with a sledgehammer and some teenager on a bike wheelies past me yelling that I couldn’t hurt a fly with that hammer, and repeats that 20 times, do I have licence to belt him with it? No. What is it about cars that allows people to use them as weapons?— Nigel Garrage
The sledgehammer analogy is a bit left-field, but good to demonstrate the law of large numbers. Suppose there were a bunch of ten teenagers running down the road, flicking the ears of every other person minding their own business.
Now imagine that there are 200 “other people”, and each one is carrying a sledgehammer. I wouldn’t bet against one or more of those people deciding to have a swing…
Generally you need to get out of this mindset of cyclists being victims and motorists being villains. To be honest I get pissed off with everyone having an “I’m a victim” mentality. Cyclists are people, motorists are people – in this case there is no doubt cyclists are acting antisocially, but there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion about the motorist’s actions.
1) You don’t understand what
1) You don’t understand what the law of large numbers is.
2) All you’re proving is that most people would have self restraint but one or two people might overreact and assault the person.
Why? Why should you have to
Why? Why should you have to change what you are doing because of a bunch of miscreants? Where do we draw the line?
ErnieC wrote:
hopefully a good way before physical assault with motor vehicle…..
So pull over and stop driving
So pull over and stop driving to cater for a yob weaving through the traffic on a bike? Perhaps not go out at all in case you pass the yob and his crew on their bikes.
ErnieC wrote:
You seem to suggest that the dichotomy is s choice between stay inside, or go out and attempt to kill or maim people on bikes (irritating as they are).
There is a 3rd way you know…
What i am trying to say/ask
What i am trying to say/ask is it ok to let them “rule “ your life. Make you change your plans to accommodate them? Not suggesting we knock them over but where do you stop backing down?
ErnieC wrote:
Now I really don’t know what you are trying to get at.
What if the driver had
What if the driver had genuine concern for their safety? Reasonable fear of being carjacked or robbed? Was a weapon displayed? Without context of what happened before no-one should be rushing to judgement here.
I had to stop following
I had to stop following Jeremy Vine on Twitter. Nothing against him at all but trawling through the mindless, ignorant & downright abusive replies to his tweets became such an unpleasant experience.
To think we’re ‘sharing the’ roads with some of those people makes me despair.
Not excusing the swerve but
Not excusing the swerve but for context have a look at the IG feed of the poster… This is (probably) NOT a case of driver attacking cyclist. This is (probably) a case of human being being intimidated and doing something regrettable.
brokenorange wrote:
I don’t think we can justify the attack by using an insta twittery thingy.
While there is no excuse for
While there is no excuse for what the driver did, look at what the person posted the day before…https://www.instagram.com/p/CPWH10rHA_w/
In the comments, the rider says “other riders were pissing him off and I clicked his mirror and fell off so he ran me over bc he was angry at the time”
Well, how about you ride responsibly and not like a c**t pissing drivers off and hitting their car…
Gkam84 wrote:
Being pissed off doesn’t excuse a direct attack on someone else.
Captain Badger wrote:
Correct, that is why I started my comment with “While there is no excuse for what the driver did”…
Gkam84 wrote:
And then continued to justify the attack –
Do you ever find yourself using phrases like “I’m not racist but…….”?
Captain Badger wrote:
I didn’t justify anything, I gave a suggestion that the rider needs to be responsible for their actions aswell. As for your next part, go f**king boil your head. Why would you even bring racism into the conversation, that just shows the level you are coming from, maybe go f**k off elsewhere, don’t need that shit here.
Gkam84 wrote:
Of course it does. Have a great weekend dude
Probably have to nick another
Probably have to nick another bike now
Can’t believe someone
Can’t believe someone actually liked this post….. wow.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
There does seem to be an increasing number of trolls on this site.
Quelle surprise ….
Quelle surprise ….
Don’t rely on the DVLA data.
Don’t rely on the DVLA data. I discovered my own car was erroneously recorded as untaxed for 3 months, when I received a red letter from them.
That is not a cyclist, that
That is not a cyclist, that is a thug on a bike.
But the looks of the gaggle of uneducated teenaged boys were causing an issue, likely by riding in a dangerous and illegal mannor, which we cannot see because the video is clipped to just show what the motorist did.
This motorist was caught up it in by no fault of their own, although I don’t agree with using a 2 tonne vehicle as a weapon, other measures could of been taken to put these broken condoms in their place. Such as opening a door into their faces.
Hopefully this will teach these future criminals to stop be little jerks.
That motorist became a thug
That motorist became a thug in a car as soon as he used his car as a weapon.
But the looks of the gaggle
But the looks of the gaggle of uneducated teenaged boys were causing an issue, likely by riding in a dangerous and illegal mannor
A call to Alanis Morissette needed?
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
No please, anything but that….
The kid on the bike became a
The kid on the bike became a thug on a bike as soon as he used his bike as a weapon also
Mybike wrote:
Didn’t see that on the vid
Open the door what happens if
Open the door what happens if they grab the door and beat you up best keep the doors locked windows up if my car was being attack and my kid was with me i use my car as a weapon
Mybike wrote:
Car wasn’t being attacked
And I’d be careful, if the person that you run over is on foot and unarmed, you would not be able to cite self-defence as you weren’t at risk, so bodily harm would be disproportionate. In any case you could have driven away…..
Captain Badger wrote:
Car wasn’t being attacked in the clip we saw. Hopefully the police investigation can shed light on the exact circumstances and we can all stop assuming.
alexls wrote:
I doubt there’ll be any need for an investigation. It was only a cyclist, and it was his own fault anyway
jerv wrote:
The serious offence here is using your car as a weapon. This wasn’t someone trying to get away, this was someone using the car to attempt to run over, or crush someone else. The guy on the bike may be a prat, but the driver was guilty of assault with intent
jerv wrote:
— jervEvidence for that statement please? Oh dear, none? Maybe you should take your glasses off and look at who is oppressing whom, who the real thugs are. Clue; it ain’t the cyclists.
eburtthebike wrote:
The evidence is that a cyclist got hit by someone in a car – must be the cyclist’s fault….
“uneducated”
“uneducated”
then…
“could of been”
“mannor”
have a word with yourself
jerv wrote:
Quite, if they were educated we would tolerate and even make excuses for any amount of mayhem caused, as evinced by the thugs currently occupying Downing st.
The driver had no Tax so was
The driver had no Tax so was driving in an illegal manner him/herself. Driver may well have been uneducated also. Have you heard the “My Chemical Romance” song Teenagers -should give it a listen. Both my well educated , employed, young daughters wear hoodies but are not thugs on bikes. Also, re read your grammar/language back before commenting on a person’s education or lack thereof!
“Boys on Bikes”
“Boys on Bikes”
When similar groups aren’t doing that kind of senseless stuff on the roads they are trying to mug cyclists, spitting at people or using angle grinders to steal bikes.
I’d put money in the driver suddenly moving to the left to get away from something about to happen on the right of their car – probably about to get their window smashed in.
“Cyclists”? I don’t know,
“Cyclists”? I don’t know, looks more like a swarm of delinquents on bicycles living up their roles as public nuisances.
Blackthorne wrote:
Person on bike = cyclist, much like person in control of car = driver. There’s no other qualifiaction.
At what point could any
At what point could any cyclist be a risk of harm to a driver protected by a 2 tonne cage? No matter what happened up to this point, driving the car over someone lying in the road is attempted murder. There were no other cyclists attacking the car, and the cyclist does not appear to be wielding a weapon. This ‘they probably deserved it for their actions leading up to this’ is very poor. Self defence is defending yourself whilst being attacked, not carrying out retribution after an event. I hope this driver is jailed.
At the point there
At the point there surrounding your car Just because your in a metal box. Does not mean your safe bats hammer guns all can hurt or kill you while your in your car just because he’s on a bike dies not make his action right
Mybike wrote:
Because that happens a lot in the UK doesn’t it. There is nothing in this video to suggest any of that was happening. All the driver needed to do was to drive on. Even if the kids were popping wheelies all over the road, and being generally stupid and dangerous. The danger would only be to themselves, just annoying to a driver. The driver is never justified to use their 2 tonne car as a weapon just to put a stop to something that annoys them. Only the police can do that, and they do.
“Bats hammers guns”? What in
“Bats hammers guns”? What in the name of sweet Jesus are you talking about?
I think it should read
I think it should read
“It does not mean you’re safe: bats, hammer, guns all can hurt or kill you while you’re in your car”
Presumably they are in the US where shooting everyone is the first solution to a problem.
I’m sure the kids in bikes were a pain in the arse and need some sort of proportionate consequence for their actions.
Right mate. The missing
Right mate. The missing commas wasn’t the main issue, but thanks anyway
This is one of the most
This is one of the most depressing road.cc discussion threads I’ve ever seen. Excusing the driver’s actions because a group of black teenagers on bikes might have been violent criminals is outrageous. Some commenters below should be ashamed of themselves.
Haha nice race baiting, but
Haha nice race baiting, but nearly all the cyclists I saw on his profile were white.
Since you’ve made the distinction though I’m going to ask the question: Is excusing the driver’s actions because a group of TEENAGERS on bikes might have been violent criminals outrageous?
? Yes. Obviously.
? Yes. Obviously.
Well that’s where we differ
Well that’s where we differ then. Nothing to do with race.
“It’s nothing to do with race
“It’s nothing to do with race because an old man on the internet said so”. Got you, Nigel Garrage.
Whatever you say pal – here’s
Whatever you say pal – here’s a video of the whole crew – enjoy https://www.instagram.com/p/CMu8jRfHmCo/
But yeah racism… his parents must be really rich, he seems to have a different bike every video…
He’s bloody good, i wish i
He’s bloody good, i wish i could do that ! (the bike skills , not the public road location for the video )
Why do you say “a group of
Why do you say “a group of black teenagers”? I can see that they are probably in their teens, and appear to be a group, but why do you say the group of teenagers is black?
Wow, lots of nasty people
Wow, lots of nasty people outing themselves here by trying to defend and justify a dangerous driver’s heinous actions.
Not really. Just a number of
Not really. Just a number of cool headed contributors saying, “Hey, let’s not jump to conclusions on the evidence of a few seconds of clipped video, without knowing the context of the events”.
Mungecrundle wrote:
That I’d accept, however, I’m not seeing many cool heads stating that, ‘xcepting your good self Munge.
Most seem to be saying that the kid was asking for it, and an attack with 2 t of steel is ok.
I have no doubt that the kid is less than responsible (character wise), perhaps even a bit of a scally, however the act of violence that we saw was an attempt to run him over, that is clear, and is the responsibility of none other than the driver. Any defence of the driver that might exist in the run-up would be at best mitigation of violent intent, however that would require evidence that the rider was actively threatening the driver, and had the means to carry that threat out – that’s not impossible, but neither do I believe likely.
To make that assumption is not cool-headed, and in any case, that logic would also dictate that we must assume that the driver too must have done something to provoke the rider, and so Infinitum
On the evidence we see, it looks like the rider was being foolish – wheelieing whilst filtering perhaps – and fell off.
SocratiI mean the driver was enraged and turned his wheel, jabbed the throttle with the intent of hitting the rider and his bike. Whether intended or not, the rider could easily have been crushed under the car, or between it and the adjacent so at best is gross negligenceThat is the action we saw, and it is unacceptable – and make no mistake, from what I saw it is likely that the driver would respond like this to any cyclist that enraged him. And most of us here have had that experience.
Mungecrundle wrote:
The context is there for all to see.
The conclusion that those “cool heads” are jumping to is that the video has been clipped. Where is the evidence for that?
Most of the “cool heads” are saying the cyclist must have done something so serious, but not shown in the video, that they deserved it.
It’s imaginary narrative in attempts to excuse a blatant assault with a vehicle as a weapon.
Here is a link to a group of
Here is a link to a group of mainly white blokes including convicted felons assaulting an Asian guy who is eventually shot and killed.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/nov/29/london-bridge-police-shoot-stabbing-suspect-after-five-injured
You really do need to understand the context of what occured before to make any sense of this event.
Mungecrundle wrote:
The mental gymnastics you are going through is quite amazing. You are deliberately misrepresenting the facts in the suicide-vest knife-killer terrorist case. This is not context before an event, it is all part of the events.
You seem to be arguing that because we don’t know what happened, because we don’t have video of before he stabbed and killed two people and therefore we cannot judge him for those actions because we cannot establish context from evidence which we are unaware of?
Until you can show there is some context we are missing, you really cannot assert that we are jumping to conclusions without the context you insist exists but have not shown exists.
Nope, I’m simply recommending
Nope, I’m simply recommending that you don’t jump to conclusions based on a tightly clipped video without any frame of reference for what led up to the incident.
Mungecrundle wrote:
You are still claiming the video is clipped, what is your evidence for this statement? …please prove I’m jumping to conclusions with evidence not a lack thereof.
You are claiming something led up to the incident, again where is your evidence to jump to this conclusion? Can you provide the frame of reference that differs to what is shown in the video?
I’m recommending that you stop jumping to conclusions without any evidence to do so.
We are looking at the same
We are looking at the same video? The one which starts at the point where the car driver rams the cyclist?
Mungecrundle wrote:
In fairness, all videos are clipped, they’d need to be otherwise we couldn’t watch them – I mean where would you start? (perhaps our Nige can chime in with a Socrates, yep Socrates, quote)
The video starts as the rider is falling off. The driver is stationary and then clearly makes an action to turn run over the rider/squash him against the adjacent car, and so on…
I think Munge you are suggesting that there may be incriminating evidence that changes the context of the story in the time running up to the attack. Perhaps, however as Chris says this hasn’t been put forward. Neither is it clear to me what would constitute justification for an attack of this nature – I suppose that we could speculate, but that’s just it – it would be speculation on the assumption that the attack was justified.
It is perfectly plausible that the poster didn’t want wheelying whilst filtering to be included, yes, or there were crossed words before, and so is being disingenuous there, but these at worst are civil matters, and neither of these things can justify the attack.
No, I’m not saying that there
No, I’m not saying that there is any justification at all, that would be a conclusion without any supporting evidence. Whilst deliberately running your car into someone is undoubtedly an extreme act I am merely pointing out that the video clip in question doesn’t provide any context as to what led up to that conflict point and therefore it is ridiculous to automatically assume cyclist = angel and car driver = devil incarnate. I even went to the trouble of finding an unrelated video to demonstrate that context is important in understanding what you are seeing.
Another parallel I can give you is the occasional story on this very forum about a cyclist going batcrap crazy and attacking a car or the driver, at which point the same argument occurs between those who condemn said cyclist as a thug and those who say “Hang on, cyclists don’t generally just up and lose their shit without some provocation”.
Everyone is assuming the car
Everyone is assuming the car driver was intentionally ramming the cyclist. They may have been driving away from something on the other side (driver’s side), not having taken into account the presence of the cyclist to their left.
Mungecrundle wrote:
At no point have I stated or implied that this or any rider is an angel, not even my good self. In fact, I have posited the possibility that the rider is anything but an angel – irresponsible, prat, scally, disingenuous, all words that I have used in reference to them in a number of comments and responses on this thread.
However, the driver clearly attempted to use the vehicle as a weapon in an act that could easily have resulted in death or serious injury. This was at best grossly negligent, and worst murderous, so he has indeed set the bar of misdemeanor very high indeed. There would have to be extraordinary justification, and so any supporting evidence to the contrary would also need to be extraordinary, therefore low probability.
On your last paragraph; of course. I would point out though that a cyclist attacking a car, reprehensible as it may be, is not in the same league at all as a driver using their car to attack a member of the public. One results in chipped paint, the other results in injury, maiming, or death.
Captain Badger wrote:
The vehicle is not stationary at the start of the video, it’s moving slowly.
Jenova20 wrote:
I disagree. It is stationary, and the brake lights are on. After the rider falls the driver turns the wheels towards him and accelerates sharply from stop.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
The cyclist isn’t blameless. By his own admission he hit the car mirror. That doesn’t excuse what the motorist did, but it’s fair to say that if you provoke the wrong person, you won’t like the result.
Jenova20 wrote:
The cyclist isn’t blameless. By his own admission he hit the car mirror. That doesn’t excuse what the motorist did, but it’s fair to say that if you provoke the wrong person, you won’t like the result.— ChrisB200SX
As the attack started after he fell off, and he was not the one controling the vehicle (the driver was), actually he is blameless regarding the attack.
He is not blameless in hitting the mirror, by his own admission, however that is another matter…..
WV67DZE – Untaxed
WV67DZE – Untaxed
Another one that thinks he can get away with not taxing his vehicle.
“I clicked his mirror and
“I clicked his mirror and fell off so he ran me over [because] he was angry at the time.”
Don’t provoke motorists. The law protects them even when they’re in the wrong, and kill other road users.
It’s ok he’ll just get a fine
It’s ok he’ll just get a fine. A friend of mine was rammed by a bus after a short altercation (him asking the bus not to cut him up essentially) outside Bristol Magistrates court a few years back. Driver got an 18 month sentence for trying to kill someone, but only managing to break their hand, arm, wrist, leg, ribs and tibia. Some of you may have even seen the incident…
So. My bet: this guy will get off with barely a slap on be wrist.