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

Nigel Garrage wrote:

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 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 videos.

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. 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

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.

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.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

I feel like I'm going round in circles here.

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 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.

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?

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.

TheBillder wrote:

I'm making the point (not well enough) that it's not the car that is taunted (if anything / anyone is). ...

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:

Why? Why should you have to change what you are doing because of a bunch of miscreants? Where do we draw the line? 

hopefully a good way before physical assault with motor vehicle.....

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:

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. 

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 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:

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?

 

Now I really don't know what you are trying to get at.

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 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?

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."

Ahahaha! I'm not speculating, I'm giving general examples. Have you considered a career in politics

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.

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:

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.

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:

 Because that's what sensible, non-reactionary people do.

No dammit, sensible non-reactionary people attack people using their motor cars!

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 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:

I haven't watched all their videos, but other than one going through a red light I couldn't see any flouting of laws.

It's definitely "Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling", could be "Dangerous cycling", and there's also "Antisocial behaviour" to consider.

alexls wrote:

AidanR wrote:

I haven't watched all their videos, but other than one going through a red light I couldn't see any flouting of laws.

It's definitely "Careless, and inconsiderate, cycling", could be "Dangerous cycling", and there's also "Antisocial behaviour" to consider.

You mean like trying to run people over....

Smiffi wrote:

None whatsoever, but if you flout the laws and lack common decency then you can't expect others to comply. 

That's precisely why the driver's actions were unacceptable and inexcusable.....

hirsute wrote:

No matter what happened before, using a 2T vehicle as a weapon is inexcusable and reckless.

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 smash the driver side window in.