Passenger filmed climbing out of a moving car and trying to push cyclist

For the pedantry I'll give you the fazed.

Meanwhile, "wing mirror' was a quote from the cammer. So unless you want road.cc to change people's statements you'll just need to suck it up. The only way round it would be to use  (Sic).

This should be your pedantic approach to the use of 'wing mirror'. Not the use of a noun which the world and its granny recognises and accepts ( bar your good self). But the poor grammatical practice in the article. 

Now that's what I call pedantry!

Glad to hear the new Skoda advert on LBC, when describing a car's features, states that it has "electrically heated door mirrors". At least some people are moving into the 21st century.

swldxer wrote:

Glad to hear the new Skoda advert on LBC, when describing a car's features, states that it has "electrically heated door mirrors". At least some people are moving into the 21st century.

I think you'll find that it's Škoda - the Š is a different letter and is pronounced 'shh'.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

We live in the United Kingdom, and as such swldxer is correct. You would be correct if we were posting in Czechia.

ŠKODA UK disagree with you.

Which they also say in the advert.

I'm now more concerned about your listening to LBC than I am about your pedantry regarding wing/door mirrors. 
 

Only James O'Brien.

I dunno, you don't need to lean out of the vehicle like that just to yell some abuse and gesticulate. I think they were intending to make physical contact with the rider.

Considering the driver was actually moving away from the cyclist, rather than towards him, I don't think there was any intention to knock the cyclist off his bike. That being said the passenger was absolutely bang out of order. 

Then again the cyclist doesn't even flinch, keeps his line, no wobbles, nothing.

Nope, as someone who has been in a very similar situation, the attempt to be pushed off is there from the passenger. Either the driver misjudged the gap (as happened to me as he was complicit) or he was not an actual arse like his passenger was. 

Cyclists reaction has nothing to do with it really as it was over and done before he knew. In fact if it was a "shout", he might have reacted more to it as it would have been an unexpected noise.

If we want to start throwing about anecdotal evidence to back up our arguments I can do that all day.

While not condoning the actions of the driver and passenger I can't see this misjudgement of the gap. The driver was definitely moving away from the cyclist before the passenger got out of the window. Surely if your intentions are to push someone off in collusion with your passenger, you would move towards them, wouldn't you?

Which is why I also stated "Either the driver misjudged the gap (as happened to me as he was complicit) or he was not an actual arse like his passenger was."

The reason I know the driver was complicit in mine was they got close and slowed down (20ish in a 40) which is why I glanced over and saw the passenger doing very similar to the above except he had a mobile phone in one hand. 

Your reply to Hoarseman originally was there was probably no intent simply because the driver wasn't close enough, I'm just adding that the drivers intention and the passengers are two different things. 

well my anecdata on this kind of thing is driver and passenger are usually not very skilled at what they are attempting, in fact they are more a danger to themselves as often being unable to calculate speed, distance or angles at the same time correctly.

it wouldnt surprise me in the least the videos you see when they do push the cyclist, are actually the result of multiple attempts and failures beforehand

Owd Big 'Ead wrote:

Considering the driver was actually moving away from the cyclist, rather than towards him, I don't think there was any intention to knock the cyclist off his bike. That being said the passenger was absolutely bang out of order. 

Then again the cyclist doesn't even flinch, keeps his line, no wobbles, nothing.

 

Perhaps, but the overtake was not exactly 163 either, and the driver continued to drive whilst the passenger was not securely in their seat.

The cyclist is obvs nailz. That doesn't make the passenger (and, in my view, the driver) any less of a pair of twunts.

Apparently if the passenger is an adult, it is their own responsibility for a seatbelt and not the driver. 

(and the filming car was not exactly 163 either). 

Rendel Harris wrote:

Bloody stupid behaviour for sure but looks more like a shout and gesture effort than a serious attempt to push the rider off?

Or an aggravated attempt to threaten and intimidate?

whatever the intent of passenger or driver, and we can agree to disagree on that aspect as we all have our own views on it, I dont think its a pointless story.

to me it highlights a microcosm of the kind of stuff cyclists on UK roads have to deal with or put up with on a daily basis.

when I go to the supermarket,go for a walk in the park or any activity that doesnt directly involve riding a bike, I dont experience people trying to deliberately hurt me, shout abuse at me, spit at me, yet these are all things Ive experienced for just riding a bike this year alone.

why ? what is it about riding a bike that makes people behave like that towards you or the people in the car in this video behave the way they did to this cyclist, what they intended to do is irrelevant ultimately, they are just conforming to a type and are engaging in oafish behaviour that says its ok to treat a cyclist like this, to do this stuff to us, because the general public dont care about cyclists or choose to call people treating cyclists badly out for it, or challenge them on it, or say no actually thats completely wrong.

It's because all other forms of hatred and abuse targetted based on appearance, belief, genetic differences etc. are illegal and pursued by the police even if its just a hint of hatred in a social forum. These c&&ts have an outlet for their prejudice nature because encouraging or acting out hatred or abuse at cyclists is not illegal unless you physically injure one. And even then its often referred to as an accident between the victim and the weapon. Cyclists are a stereotype that people like Clarkson and Liddle etc. are allowed to encourage as a target for hatred. It's time the law was changed so that it doesnt require a list of of the stereotypes that are illegal to hate, encouraging hatred and violence towards any stereotype or individual should be treated with the same legal process. In that way Clarkson, Liddle and many other media persons would find themselves in jail instead of applauded.

Inadequate and/or insecure people will always need someone to hate.

Muddy Ford wrote:

It's because all other forms of hatred and abuse targetted based on appearance, belief, genetic differences etc. are illegal and pursued by the police even if its just a hint of hatred in a social forum.

Muddy, I know where you're coming from but sadly the proportion of these abusive posts pursued by police is best measured in parts per million. Cyclists are not a unique out-group, hatred (or "look at me, aren't I transgressive and brave?") is sadly everywhere.

Too many people get their kicks from antisocial behaviour, on and off line.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

It's really hard to tell the intention of the passenger in the video but it's likely to be poorly motivated given the way he leans out of the window - no point really speculating and no prosecutable offence was committed, so it's a bit of a pointless story.

"Threatening behaviour or intending to cause fear...[causing someone to believe] immediate unlawful violence will be used against them" is a prosecutable offence under Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986; it's one of the most common charges brought by the police and this would fall well within its scope.

I thought you weren't responding to the resident wum .

Sorry, slipped. Difficult to resist the temptation to correct total ignorance and stupidity.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

It's really hard to tell the intention of the passenger in the video but it's likely to be poorly motivated given the way he leans out of the window - no point really speculating and no prosecutable offence was committed, so it's a bit of a pointless story.

You really are just a brain dead troll aren't you? 

Your comment is the equvalent of someone standing in front of a judge and saying "Yes I took a swing at the persons head with a baseball bat meaning to cause them harm, but because I missed you can't prosecute me"

No point in speculating..... no because there is no speculation needed.  They climbed out of the window with the sole intention of trying to push the cylist over.  The reason there is no speculation on this is because the passenger remained in the car before the incident, they actively reached to try and strike the cyclist then immediately after they passed the cyclist they climbed back in the car.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Rubbish, you can't infer that at all, but I'm sorry if you feel upset by the presence of someone with a different opinion to you.

Respectfully, he can infer what he likes.

As for whether a prosecution would fly in court, it depends on what the proxy for a reasonable person (a bench or a jury) decides is proven and to what extent.  To offer your Freeman approach, is an "allez" explanation credible in the circumstances?  And would a reasonable person regard it as anything but an attempt to cause fear, or an act that was reckless to the possibility of causing fear?

Quite possibly, the jury would be convinced of the passenger's complete upright standing in the community.  That's part of the battle we still have.