yet another example of how dangerous cycling can be.m

Shocking moment cyclist is knocked off his bike and then assaulted http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2912039/Shocking-moment-cyclist-knocked-bike-assaulted-swearing-van-driver.html @MailOnline

Hopefully that moron will loose his license.

I am amazed that when he punched the biker he didnt notice the helmet cam... I hope he comes forward

Lot of stressed out people about just waiting to explode. Best not to call someone a muppet or similar unless you're ready for a possible reaction. He should be prosecuted for assault of course.

Edited January 16, 201511 yr by JohnCade

Even without the evidence of the cyclist, why can't action be taken against the driver.

 

Start with overtaking on a pedestrian crossing, and just go from there.

Not only is this a direct physical assault by the driver, it is also assault with a deadly weapon. It is very clear that the van drove deliberately into the cyclist. If the cyclist was a police officer on a bike, that certainly would be the charge. I do agree that the police should be able to take action against the driver without the cyclist being named. How many other cyclist will this moron put at risk with his driving habits. You do get a ticket for speeding through a speed camera.

 

A life time driving ban and some jail time would be appropriate. If this happened and it was publicized maybe cyclist would have a bit safer environment to travel in. Just starting with enforcement of highway code 163 would be a good place to start.

Flattened him with a tidy right hook, if a bit telegraphed.

 

It is to be hoped the cyclist was not, as reported, shouting at the passenger to get off the phone.

Start with overtaking on a pedestrian crossing, and just go from there.

 

I can't see any pedestrian crossing Eddie, only a yellow box junction?

.

Time to get that Daily Mail link out on Twitter and Facebook peeps.

Show the world what a complete piece of scum he is!

It is to be hoped the cyclist was not, as reported, shouting at the passenger to get off the phone.

 

It's clearly on the soundtrack, the shout of "Get off the phone you muppet".

 

Whether a passenger is using a mobile is no business of a cyclist, he is clearly asking for trouble. While not in any way condoning the driver's appalling actions, such a bossy attitude from the cyclist makes me wonder what his actions were preceding the video clip the video. There's two sides to every story.

.

It's clearly on the soundtrack, the shout of "Get off the phone you muppet".

 

Whether a passenger is using a mobile is no business of a cyclist, he is clearly asking for trouble. While not in any way condoning the driver's appalling actions, such a bossy attitude from the cyclist makes me wonder what his actions were preceding the video clip the video. There's two sides to every story.

.

 

It's not clear to me who the cyclist is calling a muppet.

It's not clear to me who the cyclist is calling a muppet.

 

True, but if he saw the driver on the phone his camera should have caught it and I'd have thought it would have been shown it as a still. The stills only show the passenger in the van.

 

Either way his shout was ill-advised to say the least.

.

 

Either way his shout was ill-advised to say the least.

.

 

Certainly was.

 

On-road driving tuition is rarely well received by the person it's aimed at.

I can't see any pedestrian crossing Eddie, only a yellow box junction?

.

 

That's odd. The video clip that I watched this morning on FB was over 2 minutes long, and showed the van over taking the bike on a zebra crossing. It then spiralled downwards from there.

That's odd. The video clip that I watched this morning on FB was over 2 minutes long, and showed the van over taking the bike on a zebra crossing. It then spiralled downwards from there.

 

Thanks Eddie, seems a driver edited this version!

.

Edited January 16, 201511 yr by flecc

Here's an interesting discussion about this:

 

http://www.pistonheads.com/gAssing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=1476321&mid=0&i=0&nmt=Cyclist+vs+Car+%28again%29&mid=0

 

The first post has a link to the full video.

As far as I can see, it's the driver who was on the phone and the cyclist tried to catch it on his camera and shouted at him to get off his phone.

Latest update on this story

 

http://road.cc/content/news/140602-essex-road-rage-van-driver-hands-himself-police-after-altercation-video-goes

The video on Pistoheads tells more of the story. To summaries, the cyclist went looking for trouble, found it, and then got a fat lip. The end.

Or cyclist was cut up offended by the driving and pointed out the phone use was not right.

Driver took criticism as serious offence meriting assault with car and fist to re-educate stupid f$€>ing cyclist.

Fully justifiably of course as his firm pays road fund licence.

Fully justifiably of course as his firm pays road fund licence.

 

Apparently not D8ve!! From road.cc comments....

 

"And yes, the van has no MOT.https://www.vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/ NC56 FMP Ford

 

- and is actually being driven on a SORN. So driver and owner are breaking the law."

 

Makes you wonder if it was insured as well. Of course, I expect the van driver was just driving it to a booked appointment at a MOT station, to get it MOT so he could nip to the Post Office to get it taxed!

Will PC plod pick that one up. No, of course that's detective work!

 

Seems like theWild West around there

Edited January 17, 201511 yr by oriteroom

From what I have seen on a couple of vids is that both were being dicks except the van driver took it further to be the biggest one.

Personally the minimum he should be charged with is assault even if bike dick dosen't press charges the plod should be able to make it stick they have the evidence.

Just cannot see why no complaint /charge was made esp as he sent it viral looks like he's lost his bottle.

Having seen this I am thinking /considering a small bike cam may be useful.

Edited January 17, 201511 yr by Nealh

From what I have seen on a couple of vids is that both were being dicks except the van driver took it further to be the biggest one.

Personally the minimum he should be charged with is assault even if bike dick dosen't press charges the plod should be able to make it stick they have the evidence.

Just cannot see why no complaint /charge was made esp as he sent it viral looks like he's lost his bottle.

Having seen this I am thinking /considering a small bike cam may be useful.

 

Nothing illegal about being a dick. Nothing illegal about calling someone a Muppet, or pointing out that they are breaking the law.

 

Driving while on the phone: Illegal

Assaulting with fist's: Illegal

Driving an un-taxed, un-MOT'd and UN-insured vehicle: Illegal

Assaulting someone with a vehicle: very Illegal.

 

Thugs like this need to be locked up for everyone's safety.

Nothing illegal about calling someone a Muppet

 

While I agree on your point about thuggery, I can't excuse the cyclist's behaviour.

 

Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act used to mean that "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour" might be deemed a criminal offence. A House of Lords intervention resulted in the word insulting being removed, their intention being to prevent the police having a criminal charge for extremely minor matters such as disagreeing with an organisation on a placard.

 

The cyclists shout was still arguably abusive and therefore likely to cause a breach of the peace. The fact that it did just that proves the law was broken and a public order offence committed.

 

Personally I'm strongly opposed to the use of bike cams against other road users, considering them provocative. There's little doubt that a fair proportion of those using them for that purpose are actually looking for trouble, we've seen plenty of evidence for that.

.

While I agree on your point about thuggery, I can't excuse the cyclist's behaviour.

 

Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act used to mean that "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour" might be deemed a criminal offence. A House of Lords intervention resulted in the word insulting being removed, their intention being to prevent the police having a criminal charge for extremely minor matters such as disagreeing with an organisation on a placard.

 

The cyclists shout was still arguably abusive and therefore likely to cause a breach of the peace. The fact that it did just that proves the law was broken and a public order offence committed.

 

Personally I'm strongly opposed to the use of bike cams against other road users, considering them provocative. There's little doubt that a fair proportion of those using them for that purpose are actually looking for trouble, we've seen plenty of evidence for that.

.

 

Yes, I accept that the cyclist actions were aggressive.