reported a dangerous driver – now charged with dangerous cycling. Help please

oh for god’s sake man. See
oh for god’s sake man. See them in court. That way the magistrates will see your statement and probably give the CPS a rocket. They are going to need to prove that you were cycling dangerously and they probably can’t except that your ststements says you were holding on to the window. But you made the complaint.

They are not going to find you guilty and so what if they do. If they do the absolute Max fine is £1000. So that would be absolutely bang to rights for the most eggrwith every single agravating factor, ie drunk or drugged, extended period, multiple instances, poor record, attempting to deny or evade, failing to assist the police etc etc. Since you have oodles of mitigation even if they technically find you guilty it’s a slap on the wrist job.

Get a lawyer if you want and remember most home insurance policies will have cover for that. But seriously man – take the opportunity in court to embarass the silly buggers.

Also, there is a big
Also, there is a big difference between leaning on a stationary vehicle to gain balance while staying clipped in, and holding on, as the OP states he was.

If the situation arose and I couldn’t unclip, but felt I had to stop to ‘discuss’ with the cabby, I certainly wouldn’t hold on. Instead, I would simply lean using my palm, such that if he drove away, I could easily push off, avoiding this very scenario.

I’m not condoning the cabbies actions, but it seems this whole situation could have been avoided if the OP had just been the better person and got on with his life.

YOLO after all.

BigglesMeister

BigglesMeister wrote:

smileydave wrote:

section 28 actually. thanks for oyur input

Section 28 …

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/28

28 Dangerous cycling.

(1)A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.
(3)In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.

Have they charged you under the correct section ????????? You may well have been hanging on (an offence under sect 26) but not dangerous cycling (sect 28)!!!. Is it a moot point ? Unfortunately, you’d prob need to speak to your defence again to find out!

Have they charged him under the correct section? Well, let’s look at the conditions:

legislation wrote:

(2)(a)the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and

I wouldn’t expect a competent and careful cyclist to be hanging on to a vehicle, moving or otherwise. It seems most of us here wouldn’t, given that many have said he should have just put a foot down. Frankly I’d never touch a driver’s car if I could avoid it for fear of getting thumped. The same would be true if I was a fellow driver at the time or a pedestrian. Don’t interfere with someone else’s property.

legislation wrote:

(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.

Likewise. It should be obvious that if you’re hanging on to a stationery vehicle (presumably one with its engine running?) that it could imminently become a moving vehicle, which would be a bad thing.

legislation wrote:

(3)In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property;

OK, so we’re looking for danger of injury or serious damage to property. Considering that the OP ended up injured and with damaged property, an outcome that could have been reasonably foreseen, that seems pretty open and shut.

It seems they’ve charged him under the correct section. OP should have just put his foot down and not started grabbing onto a car.

Drivers are generally awful
Drivers are generally awful in London. My GF has to drive to work because she does shifts at all hours – SE15 to Chiswick – and her experience in a small car is sometimes almost as terrifying as riding a bike can be. People cut people up, pull out stupidly, lean on their horns, tailgate and brake check – all the shit we have to deal with. Ok, you’re protected in the metal box, but it’s still shit.
There’s just too many of us in London; using the congested roads is a stressful experience for everyone because there’s a significant minority using the roads in an angry and aggressive way – and I would include some bike riders in that too, though bikes can’t really cause damage to anyone (pedestrian crossing jumpers aside ).
For our safety and sanity, segregated routes are the only real solution. You can’t, sadly, stop motorists from making mistakes, being angry, or generally being fucking tools.

BigglesMeister

BigglesMeister wrote:

smileydave wrote:

section 28 actually. thanks for oyur input

Section 26 …

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/26

26 Holding or getting on to vehicle in order to be towed or carried.

(1)If, for the purpose of being carried, a person without lawful authority or reasonable cause takes or retains hold of, or gets on to, a motor vehicle or trailer while in motion on a road he is guilty of an offence.
(2)If, for the purpose of being drawn, a person takes or retains hold of a motor vehicle or trailer while in motion on a road he is guilty of an offence
[…]

I’m fairly sure that the OP is either a troll or at the least not giving a full and accurate version of events, but as an aside, hanging on to a vehicle because it has moved off and you fear falling if you let go is likely not an offence under section 26, due to the “If, for the purpose of being carried” qualification. If you can convince a magistrate that you were holding on for any reason other than getting a lift (such as being too scared to let go), then they should not convict you.

This is of course irrelevant as the OP now states it is section 28 and in any case I am not sure they could convince a magistrate of anything based on this thread. One alternative reading between the lines view of the incident could be that the OP continued to hold on to the cab door after it drove off in order that they could continue to remonstrate with the driver. This would be covered by section 28 I think.

As several others have said to the OP: get legal advice. Speak to someone who is qualified to help you, and tell them the full truth. Avoid any temptation to make comments about their mothers. You may also want to speak to Citizens Advice as a first stop (http://www.adviceguide.org.uk) – they will probably also advise you to speak to a lawyer, but might be able to help you do this and give you some good, free impartial advice along the way.

Finally, what is it with some riders and their aversion to unclipping?.
It’s fair enough all these people teetering at the lights with trackstands of varying quality, but if you’re going to stop and talk to a driver (let alone argue with them), it’s pretty damn rude to balance yourself by leaning on their vehicle unless you know them and know they are fine with it. Try using a random cyclist to balance yourself on at a set of lights and see how you get on if you disagree <:P

abudhabichris:
Eh, a
abudhabichris:

Eh, a trademark restricts the ability to trade using a certain mark – the clue is in the word. Merely cycling on a bicycle with fake badges on can not breach trademark law. Further, trademarks are a civil matter – you generally can not be prosecuted for a breach of trademarks, in the sense that word usually applies to being prosecuted by the state for a breach of criminal law.

Copyright on a bicycle: Bicycles are pretty generic. They pretty much all look very similar. Even the latest high-end bikes often have few distinguishing features. Further, such features would have to be creative – not functional – to be covered under copyright. There are also design rights, but those have to be registered. Then there are patents, but there’s little to be patented on a bicycle (outside the groupset perhaps – the big groupset makers patent every silly little thing they can). Also, again, these are all civil matters, and they can’t be brought against the person who bought the bike (though, the bike could conceivably be confiscated, however the bike owner could pursue the vendor for their money back).

Basically, you’re bringing up some rather flawed reasons for why we should disapprove of the OP.

smileydave wrote:
I”m fed up

smileydave wrote:

I”m fed up with near misses on a daily basis.

If you’re experiencing “near misses on a daily basis” then the problem is most likely to be due to your own riding competence … or lack of it. From what I’ve read from your description of events you seriously need to improve your road-craft and also deal with your own anger-management issues.

I can *just about* understand you holding on to a vehicle whilst ‘in discussion’ with the driver but … when it moves off … *you* let go. All day long. You’ll never convince me that holding on to said vehicle was the safer option.

Sounds like someone failed
Sounds like someone failed the attitude test.