A cyclist who was allegedly grabbed and pushed to the ground by an aggressive van driver during a road rage confrontation, following a collision on a narrow road, was told by police that the case will not be pursued – because, despite the cyclist capturing the incident on his bike camera, the footage did not clearly “capture an assault taking place”.
A counterclaim made by the driver against the cyclist for criminal damage was also dismissed, while a report submitted by the rider to the Operation SNAP third-party reporting portal, related to the motorist’s driving, resulted in no further action being taken because officers were “unable to say who was at fault”.
When approached by road.cc, Dyfed-Powys Police confirmed that “evidential difficulties” contributed to the case being dropped, due to both the video and audio failing to “indicate that any physical struggle had ensued”.
Meanwhile, the cyclist – who described the van driver’s behaviour as “unsettling” – claims that he was advised by a police officer, in the case of a similar incident, to try to encourage the driver to admit to the assault on camera, providing police with enough evidence to pursue a criminal charge.
The alleged assault took place after the cyclist, who wishes to remain anonymous, collided with the wing mirror of an oncoming motorist’s van, knocking its cover to the ground, on a narrow country lane near the village of Cwmann, Carmarthenshire on Sunday 25 May.
“I was cycling on a minor road that I use regularly, as it runs parallel to a busy A-road and is generally quieter,” the cyclist told road.cc.
“While riding along a relatively straight and well-sighted section, with at least 100 metres of clear visibility ahead, I noticed a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction.
“I slowed to walking pace, expecting the driver to do the same, or to stop so we could pass each other safely.
“But it quickly became clear that the driver had no intention of adjusting their speed or position. The vehicle was wide and occupied the full width of the single-track road. I had already moved over as far as I felt was safe, but the driver maintained course and speed, offering no room.
“As a result, the van’s wing mirror struck my arm while passing. A piece of the mirror casing broke off and can be seen falling to the ground in the footage.”
In the footage of the incident, captured by the cyclist’s rear bike camera, the cyclist can be seen slowing down as the van approaches, before appearing to collide with the wing mirror, shouting back at the motorist, “What the hell are you doing?”
The van driver then immediately gets out of his vehicle and run towards the cyclist, pointing his finger at him and shouting: “You f***ing a***hole! Don’t you f***ing do that to me!”
The cyclist’s bike, and its rear camera, is then tipped over into the grass verge, which the rider says was a result of the van driver grabbing him and shoving him to the ground, as he continued to shout: “You could have pulled over, I pulled over. You f***ing a***hole.”
“You could have stopped!” the cyclist replied, before alerting the driver to his camera.
“Go on, call the police now,” the motorist responded.
A woman then also emerges from the van, who the cyclist claims held on to his bike to prevent him from leaving the scene.
“Immediately after the impact, the driver stopped and exited the vehicle aggressively,” the cyclist tells road.cc.
“His manner was as confrontational in person as it had been behind the wheel, and I feared he was about to punch me. Instead, he grabbed my arm and pushed me, forcing me, while still on the bike, off the road and onto the grass verge.
“A second person, who I believe was his partner, also exited the vehicle, and both held on to the bike, attempting to block me from leaving.”
“Very unsettling behaviour”
As the confrontation continued, the cyclist asked the driver why he didn’t stop, pointing out that it is up to both of them to slow down and pull over in that situation.
“I was slowed right down. Why didn’t you stop? Look where my van is,” the motorist hit back.
After the woman claimed that the cyclist had “damaged the mirror” in the collision, the van driver then shouted: “Yeah, what are you going to do about that?!”
“You knocked my shoulder! And damaged my bike,” the cyclist replied.
The woman then repeatedly asked the cyclist for his phone number, saying, “You’ve caused this damage, so I need to claim on my insurance,” to which the cyclist responded: “But you’ve damaged my bike, my hoods, look at it!”
Meanwhile, the driver, now brandishing his own phone and appearing to film the confrontation, continued: “Yeah, well look at the damage to my bike. Up to you, mate. You know what, phone the police and I’ll be happy to talk to them.”
“Well, it’s a good job I have footage of what happened, how fast I was travelling. I’m happy to report it – because I know what happened. You bloody idiot,” the cyclist said, before eventually riding off.
“I reported the incident to 101 and, after around seven days, I finally received a response asking for evidence, which I provided promptly,” the cyclist tells road.cc of the aftermath of the altercation.
“Several days later, I was contacted by a police constable who informed me that the case would not be pursued due to ‘insufficient evidence’. The officer explained that the driver had also contacted 101 and had the audacity to make a counterclaim against me for criminal damage. However, this too was dropped.
“I was told that because the video footage didn’t clearly show the moment the driver grabbed me and pushed me off the road, there would not be enough evidence to support any action regarding the physical assault.”
The cyclist also submitted the footage of the incident to Operation SNAP, the reporting portal used by members of the public to submit alleged driving offences to the police. That report also resulted in no further action being taken, with the officer noting that, because the incident was filmed using the bike’s rear camera only, they were “unable to say who was at fault”.
He continued: “Thankfully, I did not sustain any serious injuries – only some scratches and grazes from the chainring – but the driver’s aggressive behaviour was obvious and very unsettling.
“The advice I received from the officer for any future incidents was, frankly, astonishing. Unless I believed video evidence would be sufficient, he said I should try to get the driver to admit to the assault on camera verbally.
“Apparently, the correct course of action during a violent confrontation is to ask, ‘Why did you assault me? Why did you throw me off the bike?’ – something I doubt anyone in that moment would realistically think to say.”
When approached by road.cc for comment, a spokesperson for Dyfed-Powys Police confirmed that the incident was not pursued due to “evidential difficulties”.
“All investigations are required to meet minimum evidential standards, with a realistic prospect of conviction in order to be progressed,” the spokesperson said.
“Where this is not possible, the National Crime Recording Standards require that an appropriate outcome is applied before the investigation can be finalised.
“This investigation was closed under outcome 15, which refers to evidential difficulties. The reason that the video footage was deemed insufficient is because it did not capture an assault taking place, nor did the audio indicate that any physical struggle had ensued.”
74 thoughts on “Road rage van driver caught on bike camera allegedly shoving cyclist to ground – but police say footage “did not capture assault taking place””
Institutionally anti-cyclist
Institutionally anti-cyclist
To be fair, the video doesn’t
To be fair, the video doesn’t prove the assault, it merely shows that the bike fell over. But it clearly shows a driver hitting a vulnerable road user with his vehicle, which surely has to be an offence?!
Yeah but weve had this before
Yeah but weve had this before i think, it gets logged as an assault, not assault and actually they’ve driven into someone as well, so only follows the assault decision tree and gets closed and the driving part is forgotten.
Impressively rubbish van though if bits fall off it just hitting a cyclist without causing injury to them.
AidanR wrote:
Well it doesn’t even show that. It only shows the result (the bit of mirror flying off). The cyclist could have deliberately punched the mirror as it passed. We all know they didn’t, because they’d be more likely to damage themselves than anything, but the video doesn’t prove it.
Is it me (or reading cycling
Is it me (or reading cycling sites) or is it that this high standard very often seems to apply to driving offenses though?
Like the “you can’t prove I drove on the pavement! All you’ve got is footage of the vehicle on the pavement, me driving before and after; but in between the car could have been lifted there by a tornado”.
Or the case of a cyclist being hit and killed here in Scotland where again evidence before and immediately after was accepted as proving who was driving (including apparently being on her phone after) but not the actual incident – and the driver “couldn’t recall” so no conviction.
It certainly doesn’t work the other way – drivers can provide clear proof of their own inability to drive (perhaps accidentally, in their defence) which is taken as reason for not convicting them (or at least mitigation).
You dont have to be struck
You dont have to be struck for it to be assault only apprend that.
Irrespective of the assault,
Irrespective of the assault, isn’t it clear from the hierarchy of road users who was at fault? Institutionally anti-cyclist.
Oh neat, so if I turn my
Oh neat, so if I turn my cameras off and assault an unruly driver, I’ve got nothing to worry about?
You could even leave them on,
You could even leave the cameras on, as long as they didn’t clearly capture you clawing the driver apparently?
You could leave the cameras
You could leave the cameras running, just don’t submit the footage to the police.
AFAIK, there’s an obligation
AFAIK, there’s an obligation on motorised vehicle drivers to provide their details to anyone entitled to ask for them … which is normally another driver following a collision, or a witness or the injured party.
Does such obligation exist on cyclists?
I don’t think there’s any
I don’t think there’s any obligation for a cyclist to provide their details.
There is, under s.168 of the
There is, under s.168 of the Road Traffic Act:
Failure to give, or giving false, name and address in case of reckless or careless or inconsiderate driving or cycling.
Any of the following persons—
(a)the driver of a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] who is alleged to have committed an offence under section 2 or 3 of this Act, or
(b)the rider of a cycle who is alleged to have committed an offence under section 28 or 29 of this Act,
who refuses, on being so required by any person having reasonable ground for so requiring, to give his name or address, or gives a false name or address, is guilty of an offence.
quiff wrote:
I think this incident would fall under section 170 and that only applies to motorised vehicles. I don’t think you could accuse the cyclist of inconsiderate, careless or dangerous cycling here. Quite the opposite – they were the road user actually being careful!
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/170
It’s worth noting for people
It’s worth noting for people who find themselves in the situation of being obliged to give your details to another party that if you feel threatened and that it is safest for you to get away from the person involved as soon as possible, or you feel that you might put yourself in danger by letting them know your address, there is the alternative option of reporting the incident to a police officer or at a police station as soon as possible and as a maximum within 24 hours (though “as soon as possible” is emphasised, if you turn up 23 hours later to report without a reasonable explanation of the delay that may count against you).
Yes, you’re probably right.
Yes, you’re probably right. But worth noting more generally that we’re not totally immune from giving details!
Were any assaults without
Were any assaults without independent witnesses ever prosecuted before video cameras became common?
andystow wrote:
Certainly not in the cycling realm, a couple of times way back in the day I made reports to the police of drivers who had deliberately crossed completely onto the wrong side of the road to drive straight at me and veer away at the last second – just for shits and giggles, apparently – and the best I got was “We’ve been in touch with them and they said they didn’t.”
Were any assaults without
(sorry, duplicate)
Well the footage shows him
Well the footage shows him waving a knife, and five seconds later walking away holding a bloody knife, but unfortunately we don’t have definitive footage of him sticking the knife in you so we can’t charge. Utterly disgraceful from the police.
Where’s Brent Trollyson saying that disgraceful profanities uttered by the motorist should warrant a public order offence charge?
I was commenting on another
I was commenting on another article that some motorists don’t see the need to slow down when confronted with an oncoming cyclist on a narrow section of road. This appears to be one of those motorists.
I really do hope his mirror was properly damaged and has cost him to fix. So utterly avoidable.
Fairly similar to an incident I experienced a while ago. If you look at the road, you can see the track of my tyres as I swerved out of the way (and the lack of mirror glass on the door mirror). Didn’t bother reporting it, as the police are useless where tackling road crime is concerned.
In the article case I suspect
In the article case I suspect that the reality is that the ONLY way they were getting past each other involved either someone reversing (just like an oncoming car), or the cyclist dismounting to use the grass to squeeze past, given the van when stopped in view appears to be tight against the edge. The issue pretty much being ‘how dare you suggest I might need to reverse to a passing space for a bicycle’…
My impression is the rider stopped, albeit late, just before impact with the van wing mirror (which is probably why they were still upright after the mirror was hit hard enough for bits to fly off rather than just folding in… foot on the ground providing far more sideways stability than being on 2 wheels.)
Umm, how did the other one
Umm, how did the other one get out then? Climb over and out the driver’s side or through the back?
dubwise wrote:
Because there is a soft, grassy verge that they shouldn’t risk driving on in case it won’t support the vehicles weight or is concealing a drainage ditch under the grass that provides space to open the door.
The verge that could be used for the cyclist to carefully walk over/stand on to safely get past, AFTER stopping because the tarmac area isn’t wide enough for both vehicles to pass each other and thats quicker/easier than either party reversing at this point. (Though looking again there probably is enough room to get past; just not at any sort of speed (i.e. cyclist walking with a foot on the ground past stationary van because that way even if it goes wrong, there isn’t enough momentum to damage anything…))
What ought to have happened
What ought to have happened in this situation, is the driver should have stopped. There’s room for a cyclist to safely squeeze past a stationary motor vehicle on a road like this. No need for anyone to get up on the muddy and slippery grass verge.
There is zero risk that a cyclist squeezing past a stationary motor vehicle is going to crush the driver of that vehicle to death under their bicycle wheels. Nor are they likely to knock the driver over. That’s why the driver ought to stop and let the cyclist pass by, rather than the other way around. It’s simply far less risky.
If you think it’s a bit of a hassle for a driver to briefly stop to ensure the safety of a vulnerable road user, bear in mind if this cyclist had been a driver, then they would not only have had to stop, but also either reverse some distance to a passing place or risk damaging their vehicle (and the environment) by driving off the road and up onto the verge.
The disappointing thing is
The disappointing thing is frequently on those types of roads,the driver will plough on at unabated speed. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve ended up in a hedge as a result.
I have occasionally taken a
I have occasionally taken a more central position to make it clear there’s not space for everyone to continue at speed – they slow down, I slow down, everyone gets past safely and I say thank you. Once though someone seemed to think me taking the lane briefly was a challenge to a game of chicken.
Is there a fund to pay for
Is there a fund to pay for private prosecutions? That driver and his inability to anger-manage will get someone killed.
There were multiple assaults here – one with the van, one with violent language, and one seemingly with fists, or physical bodily contact.
The evidence the driver provided in his counterclaim might be of use – if he’s claimed his vehicle was struck, then contact is not denied.
‘Evidential difficulties’ is
‘Evidential difficulties’ is just one of the numerous police dodges employed as a routine to avoid taking action against motorists, especially if a cyclist is ‘the other party’. I repeat what I have written many times before: it is very difficult to fail to despise the police
What were the evidential difficulties here?
https://upride.cc/incident/kn13aus_knausmotorhome_doubleredlightpass/
When the b******s run out of dodges, they just ignore the cases, and the PCC just says ‘it’s an operational decision of the police’. The sooner the useless PCCs are binned the better- then there’s just one gang of idle, useless, hopelessly ineffectual tossers to deal with.
Leaving aside the question of
Leaving aside the question of the assault surely the video shows evidence of driving without due care. The driver was over the halfway line on the road and the cyclist was hit. The space the driver left for the cyclist was less than the width of the handlebars let alone 1.5m. That’s without even considering the hierarchy of road users. How much more evidence do you need? And yet we are told NFA.
I suppose you could say the video doesn’t show the door mirror hitting the cyclist but the driver seems to have confirmed this so it shouldn’t need to.
Some similarities to NMOTD 520 which happened to me. I was lambasted in the comments and the police took no further action against the driver.
https://road.cc/content/news/near-miss-day-520-cyclist-hit-coming-under-bridge-280003
Leaving aside the driving
Leaving aside the driving offences the question here is quite simple. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was assaulted? In a court of law the simple answer is no. You can show that a camera was knocked over but the assault is not captured at all. In the absence of CCTV or an independent witness all you have is one word against another and that is very rarely enough to prosecute especially when you are looking at what appears to be a relatively minor assault. You can complain all you like about the police decision but they are simply complying with guidelines handed down to them by the CPS, who even if the police were to report the suspect would not prosecute that offence with that evidence in a million years.
I have no doubt that you are
I have no doubt that you are correct that the physical assault would be difficult to prove in court, however it is not up to the police to second-guess the CPS, their job is to investigate fully and then present the case to the CPS. As there is prima facie evidence of an assault they should at least have interviewed the alleged perpetrator under caution to ask them for their version of events. In addition, common assault does not have to involve physical contact, in the words of the CPS:
It is at least arguable – and I would say not so much arguable as blatantly obvious – that leaping from the car and running at the cyclist with arm outstretched shouting “you fucking arsehole” would in the opinion of any reasonable person be enough to make the cyclist fear that he was going to be assaulted, so even if there is no provable physical contact an offence has still been committed.
“however it is not up to the
“however it is not up to the police to second-guess the CPS, their job is to investigate fully and then present the case to the CPS.”
Not quite true. The police’s job is conduct a proportionate investigation and they cannot send any job to the CPS it has to pass both an evidential test and a public interest test. For the reasons I have described above the evidential test wasn’t met so they cannot send it to the CPS.
In this case you have both parties making allegations about each other so either they both get interviewed about the incident or it gets written off at an earlier stage as appears to have happened here because they have more than likely concluded that even they were to interview they wouldn’t have enough to charge.
An interview is not always necessary. In this case the suspect appears to have made a counter allegation and therefore you know from the account he has given to the police what he is likely to say in an interview.
You haven’t addressed at all
You haven’t addressed at all the fact that what is clearly shown on the video is sufficient to bring a charge of common assault under the CPS guidelines. In my opinion there is absolutely no question that there is enough video evidence for that charge. If what you say may have happened is true and the police have “written off” the incident because there are counterclaims then that would be disgraceful and definitely grounds for a complaint to the police commissioner. Can anybody get off an accusation of assault by simply claiming that the alleged victim committed an offence themselves? It doesn’t matter how many counterclaims the driver makes (and if he makes an accusation that also should be fully investigated, obviously), the evidence of common assault, of making a person believe they are about to be attacked, is right there on video.
Yep and that’s your opinion
Yep and that’s your opinion which unfortunately is very different to the realities of the legal system nowdays. I’ve just tried to give you some idea of the considerations the police have to apply in these situations. CPS guidelines are very different to what they actually charge. People often make counter allegations that muddy the waters. In the absence of independent evidence do people get off with offences they have committed, yes absolutely.
You are talking about a very low level common assault with words used instead of force. I’m not going to speculate on it because we have no idea what the victim said to the police about it and we also have no idea what the suspect told the police about his actions. The substance of the victims complaint seemed to be a physical assault.
Ultimately what you have here is a collision which is debatable who is at fault and cannot be proven, an allegation of a physical assault that can’t be proven, an allegation of criminal damage which cannot be proven and the possibility of the most minor form common assault in which we don’t know what both parties have commented on to the police.
If you think the CPS would run that at court you are incorrect and I would advise you to go and spend the day in a court and see what they will prosecute. I guarantee it will only be the most nailed on buttoned up cases.
RichT84 wrote:
I would advise you to go and look at the thread on this site’s forum, “Public order offence for swearing during a close pass”, which details how a road.cc reader is being charged with a public order offence for swearing at a driver who close passed him. You can see the video on the thread if you wish, if you look at it you will see that the accused rider never got off his bike, never approached the driver and made no threats against him, in other words did nothing to suggest that violence would be even an option, and yet they are being charged. Then come back and tell me if you’re still so sure of the statements I have quoted.
Then come back and tell me if
Then come back and tell me if you’re still so sure of the statements I have quoted
These apologists for the expletive-deleted police are persistent and very wearing. Any report arising from, or in connection with an offence against, is automatically binned by the police. I have given one example of a NFA from Lancashire Constabulary (actually, they just don’t respond) after blatant red-light offences. This is a small selection of oft-repeated recent examples from my extensive, fully-detailed collection:
https://upride.cc/incident/kn21axh_lancspolice_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/cd10wer_audiq7_closerpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/dp14fym_insignia_closepassdwlcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/ej65pff_greenpass_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/ku71cuk_montgomery44tonner_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/sk19evw_stagecoach42_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/a15tjv_bmwm4_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/ld71uom_amazonprime_handheldmobilephone/
https://upride.cc/incident/k7ddy_audia4_redlightpass/
https://upride.cc/incident/yf70xwu_aadrivingschool_uwlcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/4148vz_travellerschoicecoach_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/du61vhj_stuartbraithwaitebuilders_dwlcrossclosepass/
Perhaps your antagonist would like to list all the evidential difficulties? No, thought not- if there’s one thing the police hate, it’s indisputable evidence
I’ve quite frankly got better
I’ve quite frankly got better things to do with my life than trawl through your catalogue of close pass videos. I’ve commented on one article specifically. The terms you use like LancsFilth and expletive deleted police are 1) weird and 2) reveal where your bias lies so there is literally no point having a discussion with you about it. If you want to spend your life documenting close pass videos I wish you the best of luck and all power to you. I get my fair share of close passes and choose to move on and get on with life as I suspect do the vast vast majority of cyclists. I’m not justifying the lack of prosecutions, I was pointing out some of the difficulties in prosecuting this one. Sure it would be nice if everyone could be prosecuted for every offence but that isn’t real life though. You can rage about it all you like in the echo chamber on road.cc, that isn’t going to change anything.
I’ve quite frankly got better
I’ve quite frankly got better things to do with my life
Good- then you and the other twerp police-apologist troll can run along and do them as a better use of time than making up tripe to put on here. I gave you a load of examples from a text file of links to cases ignored by the police for you to find these evidential difficulties. There aren’t any because it’s just yet another dodge from the rather unpleasant blatantly anti-cyclist police forces with which we in the UK are burdened
He threw himself under a bus
He threw himself under a bus by admitting to the police that he was the one swearing. Otherwise, the cyclist’s mouth moving couldn’t be seen in the video so impossible to prove he was the one swearing.
whosatthewheel wrote:
Well, possibly…don’t know about you though, I don’t particularly want to live in a state where I would feel constrained to lie to the police about my actions because I knew that because of an institutional pro-motorist bias it would be me who ended up being prosecuted for swearing at the motorist who had just nearly hit me rather than the motorist being prosecuted for nearly hitting me.
However as a widely-read chap
However as a widely-read chap you could surely come up with a Whitehouse * of minced oaths, or some Herge-inspired Captain-Haddock-isms which should spike the guns of any prosecutor? Or possibly some fruity latin (Henry Beard had some tempting suggestions)?
* New (old) unit of bowdlerisation (the old old standard)?
chrisonabike wrote:
Well there’s always good old Juvenal’s complaints about ancient Rome:
The wheels creak by on the narrow
Streets of the wards, the drivers squabble and brawl when they’re stopped,
More than enough to frustrate the drowsiest son of a sea cow.
When his business calls, the crowd makes way, as the rich man, carried high in his car, rides over them, reading or writing,
Even taking a snooze, perhaps, for the motion’s composing.
Still, he gets where he wants before we do, for all of our hurry
Traffic gets in our way, in front, around and behind us.
Plus ca change…
You do not have to be hit for
You do not have to be hit for it to be assault.
Hirsute wrote:
As I understand it, assault is the threat and battery is the hitting.
I’ll get some flac for this,
I’ll get some flac for this, but I gotta say that I don’t see much to get so mad about – on either side.
I can’t properly judge the speed of the driver, but it seems to me that he was as far left as reasonable possible. Stuff like that happens every day, even here in ‘cycling heaven’ The Netherlands.
I suspect that drivers aren’t
I suspect that drivers aren’t that much different there than over here. Perhaps there’s a bit more training? Certainly drivers are more aware that there will be cyclists about. And there are the infra and rules which help guide all road users in what to expect and do where, and minimise some consequences of mistakes…
Where everyone cycles though I wonder if many drivers treat driving a bit like they would if they were cycling e.g. don’t feel the need to give extra space in a car?
There does also seem to be some psychological effect of getting behind the steering wheel. Or perhaps it’s that folks with certain complexes are more likely to be drawn to drive, and when doing so don’t observe the “bigger picture” e.g. “you held me up for a few seconds, now I need to take minutes arguing about that…”
I’ll get some flac for this
I’ll get some flac for this
Flak incoming! Something like fliegeraktioncannonen I think- also the driver is a nutter and that is something to get so mad about. I repeat what others have said: cyclist swearing = expletive-deleted police take action against cyclist, motorist swearing a lot at a cyclist = police think ‘road rats deserve all they get’
Well, to be honest, as for
Well, to be honest, as for the yelling and cursing, I think they both are overly agitated here. Both of them make a fool of themseves.
My reaction was about the actual driving and riding behaviour.
The other thing that not all
The other thing that not all folks in NL might realise is just how little time they have to spend sharing / interacting with high volumes of motor traffic – and perhaps almost none with fast motor traffic.
(Obviously there will be some variety from place to place – I’m certainly not saying everywhere is great there).
The UK doesn’t implement the concept of “single clear function for any given road” (even though an influential UK report described this idea a long time back). So we have “through routes” for volumes of traffic which are also “places”. And parking everywhere, by default (in the UK you have to apply a LOT of paint and signs and make sure you follow all kinds of processes to make it illegal to park – and that mostly doesn’t stop people anyway). We’re all so used to this that the notion of extra space for vulnerable road users here generates confusion for UK folk. Never mind the idea of “unbundling / unravelling of modes” [1] [2]. Or thinking in terms of “separate networks – which possibly intersect at points but don’t necessarily interact there”.
We also believe it’s a good idea to mix cyclists with buses (oh and taxis…) – unlike NL.
Outside of bigger urban areas in the UK (but sometimes within them also) if you want to travel from one place to another frequently the only “sensible” option is a more or less busy road with traffic at 63km/h+ – but often the speed limit on “winding country roads” is 96km/h. Lots of these have nothing other than the road – not even a footway! Or a crumbling, overgrown one covered in road debris of less than 1 metre in width (and that’s “bi-directional”!
Compare with NL here (genuine cycling network – even one optimised for recreation), here (inter-urban cycle routes with few interuptions) and here (general notes on connections / pleasantness of countryside cycling)…
If there is an alternative at all, it may well be several multiples of the distance – or the speed limits on some of those roads may not be less anyway. Or it may add many tens of metres of ascent, or involve an off-road section which you can’t really cycle on and may find you need to lift your bike over barriers etc.
Sredlums wrote:
I drive and cycle. I can imagine reacting badly to the adrenaline rush of being hit by someone’s wing mirror, and by definition nearly being hit by the appended van. But I simply cannot imagine being on the other end of this and jumping out of my car to swear at someone for knocking the plastic cover off my wing mirror (assuming it wasn’t deliberate). If I’d been driving my first words would have been “are you ok?”
I think if I’d been driving,
I think if I’d been driving, I’d just have stopped the van and waited for the cyclist to pass. Some people just refuse to accept any impediment or delay to their journey…even if it’s only 10 seconds. To me, what makes this behaviour even more bizarre is that instead of just stopping and waiting for 10 seconds, then driver then goes on to lose even more time in the following altercation. Basically just another nutter driver.
When I’m out walking on
When I’m out walking on country roads, I find a lot of drivers fail to slow or pass wide when they should stop. I nearly always have a trekking pole to assist with encouraging the correct gap.
I think it’s only cyclists or regular walkers who would stop.
Unfortunately Hirsute, I
Unfortunately Hirsute, I think you’re absolutely correct.
quiff wrote:
Well yes, that’s choice no.1. But, recognising that I’m human and fallible, if I’d failed to that then…
Exactly this, but then you’re
Exactly this, but then you’re clearly a pleasant person.
IME the sort of person who close passes a vulnerable road user with no consideration for their safety is the sort of person who’d then assault you in a rage if they’d damaged their vehicle.
It was assault. You do not
It was assault. You do not need to be struck but apprehend being struck.
Presumably the driver will be prosecuted for their language.
Any trolls can fuck off.
with the officer noting that,
with the officer noting that, because the incident was filmed using the bike’s rear camera only, they were “unable to say who was at fault”
Unlike this BMW driver, where a court appearance was scheduled, but then LancsFilth cancelled the case after years of waiting (Covid) when suddenly discovering ‘there is no rear footage’. These are just dodges- they always find that what you haven’t got is absolutely essential
https://upride.cc/incident/j111kdw_bmwgrancoupe_uwlcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/j111kdw_bmwgrancoupe_closepassuwlcross/
Perhaps our ‘evidential difficulties’ expert would like to comment on this? No? Thought not. What about this?
Road safety advocates:
Road safety advocates: “Everyone should share the road.”
Cyclists: “Easy, we just want a little respect, and enough space to be safe.”
Motorists: “Fine, but our vehicles take up about 85% of the road, so you need to dive into the verge if you see us coming, OK?”
Police: “Fair enough, and if you clip the ear of one of those cheeky cyclists, who’re always trying to create paperwork for us, we’ll look the other way.”
Car manufacturers: “Good news, our newest models require 90% of the road, so that they look squat and menacing in adverts, and have enough space for the more ample of drivers, plus cupholders for their giant beverages.”
Governments: “We couldn’t possibly pass legislation to stop the ever-growing size and weight of cars. We need news articles about jobs in car factories being saved, not more ‘war on motorists’ headlines.”
Journalists: “Most of our advertising revenue comes from the oil companies and car manufacturers, plus we need a new front on the culture war that our non-dom owners want us to push, so it is time for an article entitled, Cyclists: Worse than Hitler or only as bad as Pol Pot?“
Obvious trolls: “We’re trying to get people to waste their time by replying to us. We hope they don’t just ignore us until we go away.”
ubercurmudgeon wrote:
The trollfullness had decreased for a bit, but is now settling into a more familiar pattern. Your remedy is as usual a good idea for better chat. (Into repeated argument territory).
One thing I’ve learned. If
One thing I’ve learned. If someone comes running out of their vehicle in a threatening way, get off your bike. You’re too easy a target (as the victim was here) to be pushed over. The attack could have kept going whilst the victim was on the floor
schneil wrote:
Yes – I got punched on the chin by a drugged up psychopath (long story) because I didn’t get off my bike when the opportunity was there so when he decided to attack I was stuck in place and couldn’t jump back. I would add that you should always put your bike between yourself and the potential assailant, the presence of a “fence” between you can give them pause for thought and in the last resort if they do attack it can be an effective shield.
Seems pretty clear form the
Seems pretty clear form the video what happened. Police do fk all. What a surprise.
Nope. Please stop showing
Nope. Please stop showing your biases – they are worth f* all in a court.
All the video shows is a bike and van going slowly past each other, people giving each other verbals and the cyclists bike falling over.
You *may* infer that it happened as stated by the cyclist but its literally your interpretation against someone elses.
It makes no sense to try to prosecute this as the evidence is so weak.
Whether you like it or not has no relevance.
Plenty of evidence for
Plenty of evidence for careless driving and a public order offence. Reasonable evidence for assault, although it depends what the cyclist already said to the police.
And yet the cops disagree
And yet the cops disagree with you. Go figure!
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Paging wtjs (and no doubt many other posters)!
You only have to compare year
You only have to compare year on year stats within certain forces or compare forces with one another to see the complete inconsistencies on road crime.
The fact the police decided to do nothing does not tell you a great deal.
It is certainly NOT clear evidence that there were no crimes committed.
The van driver was going slow
The van driver was going slow based on how quickly he stopped, and it could be argued the cyclist intentionally hit the wing mirror then lost control as a result. However, the threatening behaviour of the driver is an offence according to Met police and others who state cyclists who behave angrily after being smashed into will potentially be prosecuted.
If a motor vehicle was being
If a motor vehicle was being driven past me, either from behind or in front, I would hope that they would give me a little more room on the road than this…
https://www.sentencingcouncil
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/outlines/assault/
‘Don’t you ever do that to me
‘Don’t you ever do that to me!’
Someone thinks they’re Ronnie Pickering.
Aside from that, some people really struggle to drive on single track lanes. Experience would say that the van driver was going too fast for conditions, but not for entitlement. Usually people are too nervous and there’s a stand off as each vehicle patiently waits in a safe spot. I bet this knobhead toots the horn as he’s going round bends too.
Safest thing to do, injuries permitting, is keep on riding and let the rabid shithouse cry all the way home about his broken mirror. I may, or may not, have hit several mirrors of vehicles that have got close enough to be hit.
Given the level of ‘would be
Given the level of ‘would be murders’ round my way I’m thinking of getting cams too…
There was a collision (I
There was a collision (I would love to see the front footage) and it is difficult to say on the basis of what we see who was to blame.
Both those involved immediatly had an aggressive response, one involved swearing, name calling and assault.
I would love to here what the drivers statment was to the police, did he have an explanation as to why the rider was on the grass ?