to think this bloke is getting what he deserves(25 Posts)
Basically the driver, who apparently owns a pet shop in Moseley, chases and assaults a cyclist for beeping his horn at him.
The cyclist was offered the choice between the driver receiving a caution OR compensation for his bicycle. He opted for the latter.
But the video has been viewed numerous times online and has received a lot of abuse as a lot.
Boo hoo, AIBU?
Well no he isn't getting what he deserves really. He deserved to be charged, but no-one deserves bored people who have nothing to do with the situation starting a bullying campaign and trying to ruin his business which will put others out of work too.
Why do you think him being trolled and sent death threats (from what I read) is what he deserves? He was a twat, we have all done twatty things from time to time, but its not up to a bunch of random keyboard warriors, who will jump on the next passing bandwagon, to decide how we should be punished.
Why was the cyclist offered the choice ? the driver should of been charged AND had to pay compensation for the damage. Though I have to say I cant see why the cyclist bipped in the first place (will go and have another look )
That was utterly horrific. The driver is obviously a psychopath. I can't believe such a violent reaction because someone tooted a horn at him. He isn't safe to be on the roads and should have been charged. There is public interest at stake here, too many of these idiot psychopaths are allowed to get away with their awful behaviour without sanction. The man is a maniac.
I think if society feels that maniacs aren't being dealt with properly, then there is a danger of vigilante action, which is what seems to be happening.
Yoni, I believe the cyclist beeps his horn because the driver deliberately cuts back into before he has finished passing him, because the driver objects to the cyclist being 'in his way', and is intent on punishing him.
The police don't take matters like this very seriously, you'd get a more meaningful punishment for doing a few mph over the speed limit.
The police are basically treating it as a minor dispute between two individuals, a sort of garden fence affair, rather than as a serious driving offence.
The damage sounds fairly minor "there's some cosmetic damage to the handlebar and the rack lost an arm". Which sounds like less than £100 of damages in total (I think his bike is this one: www.decathlon.co.uk/triban-3-road-bike-id_8167038.html)
Considering that if you were done for doing 35mph in a 30mph zone (which is pretty much universal) you'd be paying a £60 fine, 3 points, and then extra insurance premiums for five years (probably £200+), it's a joke.
Just read the article. The driver is getting emails and phone calls. Oh dear. Not vigilante action or anything. Not so brave when hes not behind the wheel of a car then? Presumably he can just change his email address and phone number, altering his psychopathic anti-social tendencies might be more difficult. I think its a form of social retribution, pretty harmless, and probably quite beneficial.
If its upsetting to his family, I can't imagine its any more upsetting than realising they are in the midst of a dangerous idiot.
He shouldn't be receiving death threats, that's ridiculous. But if the police did their job and charged dangerous idiots like him perhaps cyclists wouldn't feel that have to post videos like this online. The cyclist was well within his rights to post the video - he can't be held responsible for keyboard vigilantes.
Anyone who has regularly cycled on British roads will tell you how utterly sick and tired they are of distracted, arrogant or incapable drivers putting them in danger. Not the slightest surprise that the study quoted in the Guardian article found 87% of accidents involving cyclists were drivers' faults.
Perhaps if more cyclists use helmet cams and the police actually start to take assaults and dangerous driving seriously road users might actually start to behave responsibly.
The driver is getting emails and phone calls. Oh dear. Not vigilante action or anything.
It's still harrassment.
The sentence is on the lenient side, but apparently there is no previous bad behaviour to take into account so possibly a one-off incident.
If you look at the cyclist's other videos, he goes on the lookout for confrontation with drivers so he can post it on Youtube (and as an aside, ignores road signs himself) - it was almost guaranteed that he was going to cross the path of someone like this at some point.
Anyone who has regularly cycled on British roads will tell you how utterly sick and tired they are of distracted, arrogant or incapable drivers putting them in danger.
If the motorcycling thread is anything to go by, it's not the drivers' faults, it's the cyclists
Actually the cyclist was the one who made the initial error. If you look at about 9 seconds in the white van is coming slowly out of a turning, joined a queue of traffic - the cyclist tried to slip in to the left of him onto the path of a car trying to park. - He should have dropped in behind the van.
The van then obviously had to wait while the car finished parking because the cyclist was blocking the way.
The van man then (lost his senses obviously) chased the cyclist down and followed him, came around him, slammed his brakes, opened door etc.
Obviously this doesn't excuse him for chasing down and pounding the bloke (understatement of the year) - but it's interesting that the cyclist posted the whole clip, - I wonder whether that means he thinks he made no mistake or is he saying, 'I made a small error and got attacked for it'
dunno - but road rage is a terrible thing, very frightening when you're on the receiving end of it.
"It's still harrassment."
No, not in law.
" he goes on the lookout for confrontation with drivers so he can post it on Youtube (and as an aside, ignores road signs himself) - it was almost guaranteed that he was going to cross the path of someone like this at some point."
"If the motorcycling thread is anything to go by, it's not the drivers' faults, it's the cyclists "
Sad 'them and us' attitude. Drivers and cyclists are not a collective group, any individual can behave poorly, regardless of their mode of transport.
"In this legal guidance, the term harassment is used to cover the 'causing alarm or distress' offences under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended (PHA), and 'putting people in fear of violence' offences under section 4 of the PHA.
Although harassment is not specifically defined it can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contacts upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person."
"harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious."
Sounds like it is in law.
What has 'SlutWalk' got to do with anything?
"Sad 'them and us' attitude"
Why is that directed at me? I was referring to the MN thread, not stating my position.
Threads like this always make me realise why we have to suffer stupid little men like the driver in this incident. I can imagine their upbringings "its never your fault dear, it was the other nasty boy/girl/man/woman/policeman/bike/car".
Apparently it was his wife was sitting in the passenger seat, but initially denied knowing who the diver was.
WMittens, the police have a lot of trouble with armchair lawyers claiming being less than charming to someone constitutes 'harassment'. IYou can google some actual examples of what is harassment if you like though.
The point of slutwalk is that people went out behaving 'provocatively' as a response to people like yourself who said that victims were 'asking for it' because of their behaviour.
Fenton, actually the cyclist is on the left of the van, so he is not blocking the van from moving foward, the car is blocking him.
He does, possibly, momentarily block the van, when the car gets into the space and the cyclist goes first because he doesn't need as much space as the van does to get past, so he is able to move before the car has made it into the space.
I wouldn't say that this is a mistake, given the stationary queue of traffic, he's just trying to make progress.
The driver should have been charged with assalt or gbh/whatever. Nasty attack.
I can forgive the driver, only because he isn't driving an Audi
The cyclist tried to slip between the cars parked on the left and the queue of (momentarily) stationary cars on his right, - ordinarily that would be fine but a car was parking so his way wasn't clear, he should have waited behind the van while the car finished.
If the cyclist hadn't made that mistake the van would have been able to maneouver around the parking car, moving on when the queue of traffic started moving.
It was his mistake, and actually it sounds like he groaned at the parking car so I guess he didn't think he was in the wrong about that either.
I would like to repeat that it in no way excuses road rage van man for what he did.
I saw this yesterday. He should be charged. I can't understand why he hasn't been. Surely there's enough on tape to prove a driving offence and some form of assault charge.
I understand why the person attacked doesn't want this turning into a hate campaign. It might be better for people to contact their MP and find out why no charges have been brought/donate to bring a private prosecution. Nasty phone calls that his wife or DC might answer aren't an adequate response to his frankly disturbing, unprovoked, violent outburst.
Fenton, I'm sure most drivers and cyclists would tend to tut at other people's driving/cycling, even if perhaps they've contributed to the situation themselves. Here he is tutting because the car, which perhaps he thought was pulling out, is actually having a second go at the parallel park.
Most people believe that they are the one in the right in these situations, especially on the spur of the moment. Nothing wrong with that really.
on the spur of the moment, - true. Also there's no quick or elegant way to reverse on a bike, once he realised his mistake he was stuck there really.
But as road users we should all judge the road situations ahead a lot better than any of them did in that situation.
So receiving death threats isn't harassment?! Fucking hell, you're harsh. Even the cyclist has told people to leave the driver and his family alone from that.
Where have I ever said he was asking for it? Stop twisting my words.
WMittens, your post read:
WMittens Mon 29-Apr-13 12:57:10
> The driver is getting emails and phone calls. Oh dear. Not vigilante action or anything.
It's still harrassment.
You were not referring to death threats.
Stop twisting my words.
Fenton, any of them? Only the cyclist misread the situation, the van driver just behaved like a psychopath.
I would disagree with 'a lot better' in respect of the cyclist. Most cyclists would instinctively start filtering when they come to a queue. That's what happened here. Sometimes you can't get through. It's not a big deal though.
When I drive my car I see lots of people driving on the wrong side of the road to pass parked cars when they see cars coming the other way. It's impatient, and wrong, but it's not something to go psycho over. Some driver might beep their horn at them though.
I've already said twice about how inexcusable the road rage van man's actions were, didn't think I had to say it again.
Join the discussion
Please login first.