Shocking video appears to show motorist driving into cyclist who fell off his bike

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:

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".

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. Socrati I 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 negligence

That 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:

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".

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 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-sho...

You really do need to understand the context of what occured before to make any sense of this event.

Mungecrundle wrote:

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-sho... You really do need to understand the context of what occured before to make any sense of this event.

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 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:

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.

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 video? The one which starts at the point where the car driver rams the cyclist?

Mungecrundle wrote:

We are looking at the same video? The one which starts at the point where the car driver rams the cyclist?

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 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".

Mungecrundle wrote:

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".

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.

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.

Captain Badger wrote:

The video starts as the rider is falling off. The driver is stationary

The vehicle is not stationary at the start of the video, it's moving slowly.

Jenova20 wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

The video starts as the rider is falling off. The driver is stationary

The vehicle is not stationary at the start of the video, it's moving slowly.

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:

Wow, lots of nasty people outing themselves here by trying to defend and justify a dangerous driver's heinous actions.

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:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Wow, lots of nasty people outing themselves here by trying to defend and justify a dangerous driver's heinous actions.

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.

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.....

? Yes. Obviously. 

"It's nothing to do with race because an old man on the internet said so". Got you, Nigel Garrage.

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 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?

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:

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

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 the name of sweet Jesus are you talking about?

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.