Police hunt driver who aimed car at London cyclists (+ video)

vonhelmet wrote:

The Express is decorative bog roll, much like the mail. If they ran a story about my having a hole in my arse I’d be sceptical.

You're not the problem, it's the muppets who buy it, get it read to them and then believe it as gospel.

vonhelmet wrote:

The Express is decorative bog roll, much like the mail. If they ran a story about my having a hole in my arse I’d be sceptical.

I think that would likely run with:

"DOES THE HOLE IN YOUR ARSE CAUSE CANCER?"

or

"IMMIGRANTS COME IN THE HOLE IN YOUR ARSE"

or

"DID DIANA DIE IN THE HOLE IN YOUR ARSE"

vonhelmet wrote:

The Express is decorative bog roll, much like the mail. If they ran a story about my having a hole in my arse I’d be sceptical.

Your being unfair. Bog roll is far more useful, and the content is generally better written.

However, people do still read it and it does have an impact. The Express that’s is...

John Smith wrote:

Car drives at cyclists.

Police hunt driver.

Express article “Who was in the wrong? London motorist mounts pavement during FURIOUS row with cyclist”

and people still try and claim cyclists are not being targeted and the bias is all in the mind of cyclists.

JHC, I thought that was a spoof, but it is true.  https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/998116/London-news-motorist-drives-int...

Utterly incredible, even for that fetid pustule on society's ass, the Express.

Edit; don't read the comments.  Really, really don't read them.  I'm not joking, don't.

burtthebike wrote:

John Smith wrote:

Car drives at cyclists.

Police hunt driver.

Express article “Who was in the wrong? London motorist mounts pavement during FURIOUS row with cyclist”

and people still try and claim cyclists are not being targeted and the bias is all in the mind of cyclists.

JHC, I thought that was a spoof, but it is true.  https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/998116/London-news-motorist-drives-int...

Utterly incredible, even for that fetid pustule on society's ass, the Express.

Edit; don't read the comments.  Really, really don't read them.  I'm not joking, don't.

I don't think its just the Express.  Most of the papers that picked the story up seem to have described it along the lines of how it all started when a motorist got into a confrontation with cyclists, as if Somehow it was the cyclists' fault.

burtthebike wrote:

John Smith wrote:

Car drives at cyclists.

Police hunt driver.

Express article “Who was in the wrong? London motorist mounts pavement during FURIOUS row with cyclist”

and people still try and claim cyclists are not being targeted and the bias is all in the mind of cyclists.

JHC, I thought that was a spoof, but it is true.  https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/998116/London-news-motorist-drives-int...

Utterly incredible, even for that fetid pustule on society's ass, the Express.

Edit; don't read the comments.  Really, really don't read them.  I'm not joking, don't.

Disgusting, isn't it, seems to have actually been a row between the dangerous driver and the driver behind him.
At no point did I see a row between driver and cyclists... not until he was already trying to run them over anyway.

atgni wrote:

Surely the footage going viral has compromised any chance of a fair trial.

This was mentioned with the footage last week, how does it affect it at all ? Keeping in mind there's a trial going on now, where cctv footage was published in national newspapers and shown on national tv.

Awavey wrote:

atgni wrote:

Surely the footage going viral has compromised any chance of a fair trial.

This was mentioned with the footage last week, how does it affect it at all ? Keeping in mind there's a trial going on now, where cctv footage was published in national newspapers and shown on national tv.

I don't see it's relevant at all but the police keep saying you can't post it before they've seen/ignored it.

brooksby wrote:

Its the only way to be sure...

http://www.stingerspike.com/

I fear it might puncture the drinks bladder and/or rip the rucksack as I try to get it out. Anyway, I already carry a shitload of crap on the commute.

Bill H wrote:

The owner of the vehicle can claim that someone else was driving, yet decline to name who, on grounds of avoiding incriminating themselves.

Yes, it's bollocks, you know it, I know it, the police know it, the magistrates know it, but that's the law and our beloved MP's are in no mood to correct it. 

Yep, but in failing to name them they are commiting an offence in itself and are liable to be prosecuted anyway. Albeit a lesser offence I suspect.

The police were utterly useless at the scene and practically let the guy drive away. After all they needed to protect him from those nasty vicious cyclists.

Fishpastesarnie wrote:

Bill H wrote:

The owner of the vehicle can claim that someone else was driving, yet decline to name who, on grounds of avoiding incriminating themselves.

Yes, it's bollocks, you know it, I know it, the police know it, the magistrates know it, but that's the law and our beloved MP's are in no mood to correct it. 

 

 

 

Yep, but in failing to name them they are commiting an offence in itself and are liable to be prosecuted anyway. Albeit a lesser offence I suspect.

The police were utterly useless at the scene and practically let the guy drive away. After all they needed to protect him from those nasty vicious cyclists.

We don’t know if the police driver had the training to follow the driver. If he did he may have decided that there was to much of a risk that the driver would do something stupid on busy, narrow roads during rush hour, or putting the immediate need to check if anyone had been hit and injured above following the car. Real life policing isn’t like the Sweeny.

John Smith wrote:

Fishpastesarnie wrote:

Bill H wrote:

The owner of the vehicle can claim that someone else was driving, yet decline to name who, on grounds of avoiding incriminating themselves.

Yes, it's bollocks, you know it, I know it, the police know it, the magistrates know it, but that's the law and our beloved MP's are in no mood to correct it. 

 

 

 

Yep, but in failing to name them they are commiting an offence in itself and are liable to be prosecuted anyway. Albeit a lesser offence I suspect.

The police were utterly useless at the scene and practically let the guy drive away. After all they needed to protect him from those nasty vicious cyclists.

 

We don’t know if the police driver had the training to follow the driver. If he did he may have decided that there was to much of a risk that the driver would do something stupid on busy, narrow roads during rush hour, or putting the immediate need to check if anyone had been hit and injured above following the car. Real life policing isn’t like the Sweeny.

If he's driving an unmarked car he has had the training.

I don't understand it either. It looks very much like he just wanted to make it look like he was doing something when in actual fact he did nothing at all. The driver is free to kill anyone he likes.

webster wrote:

John Smith wrote:

Fishpastesarnie wrote:

Bill H wrote:

The owner of the vehicle can claim that someone else was driving, yet decline to name who, on grounds of avoiding incriminating themselves.

Yes, it's bollocks, you know it, I know it, the police know it, the magistrates know it, but that's the law and our beloved MP's are in no mood to correct it. 

 

 

 

Yep, but in failing to name them they are commiting an offence in itself and are liable to be prosecuted anyway. Albeit a lesser offence I suspect.

The police were utterly useless at the scene and practically let the guy drive away. After all they needed to protect him from those nasty vicious cyclists.

 

We don’t know if the police driver had the training to follow the driver. If he did he may have decided that there was to much of a risk that the driver would do something stupid on busy, narrow roads during rush hour, or putting the immediate need to check if anyone had been hit and injured above following the car. Real life policing isn’t like the Sweeny.

 

If he's driving an unmarked car he has had the training.

I don't understand it either. It looks very much like he just wanted to make it look like he was doing something when in actual fact he did nothing at all. The driver is free to kill anyone he likes.

Not necessarily. You don't have to be pursuit trained and authorised to drive an unmarked car. You don't even need anything more than a standard driving licence. Even cilvilian staff can drive them. They cannot use the lights and sirense, but that is an entirely separate matter (Forces may have their own rules that go above and beyond the basic requirments) They are used for many other things, and this appears to be a low powered response car. Also, the officers are BTP, not Met, who genaraly have a principle not to pursue, or at least did a few years ago.

I'm guessing the driver thought the car was going to pull up but stopped when he realised he was not going to.

Fishpastesarnie wrote:

The police were utterly useless at the scene and practically let the guy drive away. After all they needed to protect him from those nasty vicious cyclists.

I’m sure they had good reason for not wanting to kick off a high speed pursuit in a built up area during rush hour.

I’m buggered if I know what, but there must have been a reason they thought that was a bad idea.

Bowks wrote:

I'm confused as to why the police, who were on the scene immediately, failed to catch and arrest this scrote.

And how difficult can it be with having the number plate and good video of the driver?

cdamian wrote:

Bowks wrote:

I'm confused as to why the police, who were on the scene immediately, failed to catch and arrest this scrote.

And how difficult can it be with having the number plate and good video of the driver?

Coverage elsewhere said that the driver announced it was "a stolen car".  So it may be harder to track him down than simply contacting the registeration holder.

Bowks wrote:

I'm confused as to why the police, who were on the scene immediately, failed to catch and arrest this scrote.

 

Perhaps because they didn't think to go after him in their car? 

whobiggs wrote:

Bowks wrote:

I'm confused as to why the police, who were on the scene immediately, failed to catch and arrest this scrote.

 

 

Perhaps because they didn't think to go after him in their car? 

They started to and stopped, as far as we can see. The reasons why that was has been speculated about here and elsewhere but they clearly did initially "think to go after him in their car".