VIDEO: Van driver forces cyclist off road; QC offers help to sue

OldRidgeback wrote:

Just to wind things back a little, I'm really curious as to what charges the driver will be given by the police (if) when action is taken. It could be argued that the driver was attempting assault. Though I strongly doubt such charges would be laid. Given that it was a deliberate move, driving without due care and attention would not be sufficient. Is there even the driving equivalent of an attempted assault? Or would the charge simply be dangerous driving?

whatever the charges it'll be very interesting to see how a jury the great unwashed motorists deal with it. 

On one hand your average motorist will take a dim very of the cyclist positioning (wrongly) but on the other hand the white van man must be Among the most hated motorists on the roads.  every motorist will have at least one anecdote about a psychopath in a white van trying to kill them for some perseved slight on there manhood. 

OldRidgeback wrote:

Just to wind things back a little, I'm really curious as to what charges the driver will be given by the police (if) when action is taken. It could be argued that the driver was attempting assault. Though I strongly doubt such charges would be laid. Given that it was a deliberate move, driving without due care and attention would not be sufficient. Is there even the driving equivalent of an attempted assault? Or would the charge simply be dangerous driving?

You can't attempt assault, whether you're in a car or not.  Assault broadly means that the victim fears imminent violence.  You either succeed or you fail - it's not really a crime to attempt to be scary if it turns out you actually aren't.

In this case there is very real and actual physical violence, so we're well past merely attempting to instil fear.  This is dangerous driving for sure, though whether any charges actually get brought remains to be seen.

vonhelmet wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

Just to wind things back a little, I'm really curious as to what charges the driver will be given by the police (if) when action is taken. It could be argued that the driver was attempting assault. Though I strongly doubt such charges would be laid. Given that it was a deliberate move, driving without due care and attention would not be sufficient. Is there even the driving equivalent of an attempted assault? Or would the charge simply be dangerous driving?

You can't attempt assault, whether you're in a car or not.  Assault broadly means that the victim fears imminent violence.  You either succeed or you fail - it's not really a crime to attempt to be scary if it turns out you actually aren't.

In this case there is very real and actual physical violence, so we're well past merely attempting to instil fear.  This is dangerous driving for sure, though whether any charges actually get brought remains to be seen.

Explains it better

https://www.ukessays.com/ask/what-is-assault-criminal-law-119

Mungecrundle wrote:

Not really a fan of banning outsider opinion or devil's advocates.

Me neither. But BikeLikeBike is none of those. He is a troll who pretends to like cycling. If he'd just drop the act when stating his no doubt sincerely held view, people would have less of a problem with him.

srchar wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

Not really a fan of banning outsider opinion or devil's advocates.

Me neither. But BikeLikeBike is none of those. He is a troll who pretends to like cycling. If he'd just drop the act when stating his no doubt sincerely held view, people would have less of a problem with him.

Agreed. There's a world of difference between being Devils Advocate from outside our echo chamber/filter bubble type thing, and just doing it to p*$$ people off. However many valid arguments or points Blb or even Willo ever made, ultimately they were only really (purely) in it to raise people's blood pressure IMO.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Not really a fan of banning outsider opinion or devil's advocates. This thread would just be a long rant of anger over the poor driving on display. Sometimes you need an unpopular, contrary or extreme opposite viewpoint in order to hone your own argument.

Bad language, excessive reference to Herr Hitler, racism, sexism, lgbt bashing etc etc are all grounds for getting banned. But winding people up with unpopular opinion surely has to be fair game for an internet forum?

If nothing else, the opposing viewpoint whether genuinely held or deliberately manufactured to outrage the indiginous self selected user group of a special interest forum helps us to share the devastating counter arguments to such opinions which some people out in the wider world do actually have with regard to cyclists and our rights as road users. Personally I have come to some different conclusions having read opinions on this site that I disagreed with and subsequently went and researched.

SuperPython 59, Willo and now BikeLikeBike. I salute fallen foes.

Not aware of why python got banned, and I will miss him. I thought he contributed to the debate, and I wouldn't class him as a troll.

But BLB was saying if he was in the van driver's position he would have acted aggressively towards the cyclist, his exact phrase was "worry him like a sheep dog". If I recall, Willo got banned not long after some similar posts.
They both (or was it the same person? I'm 95% sure) also displayed classic trolling behaviour.

A cyclist on here said they would do the bike equivalent of a punishment pass on pedestrians who deliberately daudle in the crosswalk... (but it was ok because they were yobbo pedestrians). I don't see anyone banning them (nor am I asking for it). 

The comments section here can be rabidly anti-car at times (I would say this is different to pro-cycling), but it's to be expected, I suppose.

I don't know what precipitated BLB banning - I thought their posts seemed to start from the view that "cyclists are in the way and shouldn't be surprised that honest upstanding car drivers are frustrated by their prescence on the roads." Which is a red rag to a bull on a cycling forum. This site does seem to delight in a daily diet of car driver vs cyclist altercations. I'm glad to say I have almost none of these in my life.

I read the Python thread in question, and it was a bunch of unpleasent/agressive name calling with someone else, seemingly continuing on from another thread after a warning a few days before. Python had some good knowledge to share on any number of cycling topics, however (s)he came across as pretty angry at the world, and didn't display much in the way of tolerance or respect for alternate viewpoints. Their attitude was beyond "snark" IMHO.

MandaiMetric wrote:

The comments section here can be rabidly anti-car at times (I would say this is different to pro-cycling), but it's to be expected, I suppose.

http://road.cc/content/forum/222030-anyone-actually-likes-cars-here

46 replies. We're quite a balanced bunch on road.cc.

MandaiMetric wrote:

A cyclist on here said they would do the bike equivalent of a punishment pass on pedestrians who deliberately daudle in the crosswalk... (but it was ok because they were yobbo pedestrians). I don't see anyone banning them (nor am I asking for it). 

The comments section here can be rabidly anti-car at times (I would say this is different to pro-cycling), but it's to be expected, I suppose.

I don't know what precipitated BLB banning - I thought their posts seemed to start from the view that "cyclists are in the way and shouldn't be surprised that honest upstanding car drivers are frustrated by their prescence on the roads." Which is a red rag to a bull on a cycling forum. This site does seem to delight in a daily diet of car driver vs cyclist altercations. I'm glad to say I have almost none of these in my life.

I read the Python thread in question, and it was a bunch of unpleasent/agressive name calling with someone else, seemingly continuing on from another thread after a warning a few days before. Python had some good knowledge to share on any number of cycling topics, however (s)he came across as pretty angry at the world, and didn't display much in the way of tolerance or respect for alternate viewpoints. Their attitude was beyond "snark" IMHO.

SP59 was called a C@@t for stating that people were getting their knickers in a twist over a non-event, that he subsequently was banned for pointing this out and questioning why he was being called a C@@t and proving his point (about the faux offence) clearly didn't go down well. The person calling him a c@@t was not banned IIRC.

Don't know how you can state he didn't respect other people's viewpoint, responding back in kind to posts as most people on here do with reasoned agrument and to boot never called another poster a C@@t or otherwise. Think you are misreading having a strong opinion backed with a reasoned agrument which was rarely rebuffed to having a reluctance to respect others viewpoints or lack of tolerence, that's simply wrong.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Think you are misreading having a strong opinion backed with a reasoned agrument which was rarely rebuffed to having a reluctance to respect others viewpoints or lack of tolerence, that's simply wrong.

lol

.

CygnusX1 wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

Not really a fan of banning outsider opinion or devil's advocates. This thread would just be a long rant of anger over the poor driving on display. Sometimes you need an unpopular, contrary or extreme opposite viewpoint in order to hone your own argument. Bad language, excessive reference to Herr Hitler, racism, sexism, lgbt bashing etc etc are all grounds for getting banned. But winding people up with unpopular opinion surely has to be fair game for an internet forum? If nothing else, the opposing viewpoint whether genuinely held or deliberately manufactured to outrage the indiginous self selected user group of a special interest forum helps us to share the devastating counter arguments to such opinions which some people out in the wider world do actually have with regard to cyclists and our rights as road users. Personally I have come to some different conclusions having read opinions on this site that I disagreed with and subsequently went and researched. SuperPython 59, Willo and now BikeLikeBike. I salute fallen foes.

Not aware of why python got banned, and I will miss him. I thought he contributed to the debate, and I wouldn't class him as a troll. But BLB was saying if he was in the van driver's position he would have acted aggressively towards the cyclist, his exact phrase was "worry him like a sheep dog". If I recall, Willo got banned not long after some similar posts. They both (or was it the same person? I'm 95% sure) also displayed classic trolling behaviour.

Not wishing to excuse BLB's behaviour, but he did admit to having Aspergers during the rather bizarre comment thread on the story about Businesses being urged to provide more facilities for cyclists at workplaces, a while back (in which he admitted to having 3 or 4 showers everyday and having to eat his breakfast in different clothes from those he worked in). His 'comments were possibly more indicitive or a person who has difficulty in interacting with others in a "normal" civil manner, rather than someone going out of his way to Troll.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Not really a fan of banning outsider opinion or devil's advocates. This thread would just be a long rant of anger over the poor driving on display. Sometimes you need an unpopular, contrary or extreme opposite viewpoint in order to hone your own argument. Bad language, excessive reference to Herr Hitler, racism, sexism, lgbt bashing etc etc are all grounds for getting banned. But winding people up with unpopular opinion surely has to be fair game for an internet forum? If nothing else, the opposing viewpoint whether genuinely held or deliberately manufactured to outrage the indiginous self selected user group of a special interest forum helps us to share the devastating counter arguments to such opinions which some people out in the wider world do actually have with regard to cyclists and our rights as road users. Personally I have come to some different conclusions having read opinions on this site that I disagreed with and subsequently went and researched. SuperPython 59, Willo and now BikeLikeBike. I salute fallen foes.

We're not fans of banning people either - if we were BikeLikeBike would have gone at least a week ago when people started complaining about him - we did delete some of his more egregious comments at the time. With hindsight we should deleted have his account sooner. 

As I've said before when either warning people - SuperPython59, or explaining their banning - erm, SuperPython59 again,  we don't moderate our forums or comments sections - we prefer to trust people to engage in civilized debate - or the internet's rough equivalent therof. We do though have T&Cs regarding racism, sexism, personal abuse, threats, and general unpleasantness which everyone who registers on road.cc site signs up to. 

We apply a fairly liberal interpretation to these rules - winding each other up is allowed - this is the internet after all. You're all adults and most commenters on here seem to be able to give as good as they get while at least keeping within the spirit of our T&Cs if not always the letter.  

BUT if we see someone flagrantly flouting those rules or more importantly if people start complaining directly to us we will take action - and as it says in the T&Cs that action will generally be of the account deleting variety - sometimes we'll give a warning, but if we think someone is a blatant troll we won't. The vast majority of people who visit road.cc don't comment but a lot of them do read the comments. Quite often the comments are some of the best bits on a story - very very occasionally though they offend and upset and put people off,  which clearly we don't like.

In this case BikeLikeBike managed to rack up a startling number of complaints in a very short space of time - quite a feat on a Saturday night - so he had to go.

Deleting someone's account is the nuclear option because (as you've seen) it removes all that person's comments and all the replies to them too, so sorry if some of the threads BikeLikeBike 'contributed' to now appear disjointed - and indeed if some of your comments disappeared too. The alternative would be to lock someone out and then go back over their posting history deleting offensive comments but we don't have the manpower, nor to be frank, the will for that approach - especially if we had to apply it to someone like BikeLikeBike who in the space of the few short weeks he was registered on the site did a LOT of commenting. 

Touch wood, but in the eight and a half year's the site has been going this is something we've been forced to do only a handful of times (only two of the people you mention had their accounts deleted) because give or take the odd grumble or snark most people on here manage to rub along together for the vast majority of the time. Not bad really given the size of the site an the number of you who comment.
 

Tony Farrelly wrote:

We're not fans of banning people either - if we were BikeLikeBike would have gone at least a week ago when people started complaining about him - we did delete some of his more egregious comments at the time. With hindsight we should deleted have his account sooner.

One of the things riding a bike has taught me (and it's taught me many things) is which stuff worth getting bothered about, and stuff that's not. Penny farthings and full-suspension mountain bikes, not my thing but yeah, moving on. Driving a ten ton truck six inches from my right elbow, I'll want a conversation.

Some of BLB's comments on the Michael Mason thread were off colour and distasteful and arguably strayed over the line of acceptability. But the "worrying him like a sheepdog" comment went beyond mere professional trolling and into showing his true colours and advocating aggressive behaviour as shown in the video above. That crossed a line. Not sorry to see his platform removed.

Back on topic, the chap in charge of Vidette would have much better served by something a lot shorter and simpler along the lines of:

Quote:

That's not right, I'm ashamed and embarrassed by the unacceptable behaviour of our former employee. This has been drilled into our drivers - we won't put up with this. I fully support any criminal complaint, and would like to apologise unreservedly on behalf of the company

Mungecrundle wrote:

Not really a fan of banning outsider opinion or devil's advocates. This thread would just be a long rant of anger over the poor driving on display. Sometimes you need an unpopular, contrary or extreme opposite viewpoint in order to hone your own argument.

Bad language, excessive reference to Herr Hitler, racism, sexism, lgbt bashing etc etc are all grounds for getting banned. But winding people up with unpopular opinion surely has to be fair game for an internet forum?

If nothing else, the opposing viewpoint whether genuinely held or deliberately manufactured to outrage the indiginous self selected user group of a special interest forum helps us to share the devastating counter arguments to such opinions which some people out in the wider world do actually have with regard to cyclists and our rights as road users. Personally I have come to some different conclusions having read opinions on this site that I disagreed with and subsequently went and researched.

SuperPython 59, Willo and now BikeLikeBike. I salute fallen foes.

I shared your view over Willo mk1. He contributed in other areas - actually seemed to know his way around a bike.

When he came back as BLB, he was just a troll. No value whatsoever, no sympathy for his banning. But I'm sure he'll be back. Probably as Applecart, who's also claimed to live in 'Scandinavia'.

SP59's banning was sillier: he posted something a bit conspiracy theoryish then Leviathan had a proper wobble at him. Given Tony's comments, it must've generated a load of complaints, too. But I've a feeling SP59 won't stay away too long, probably be back posting about the same stuff, with slightly better manners, if you look hard enough...

Mungecrundle wrote:

Not really a fan of banning outsider opinion or devil's advocates. This thread would just be a long rant of anger over the poor driving on display. Sometimes you need an unpopular, contrary or extreme opposite viewpoint in order to hone your own argument. Bad language, excessive reference to Herr Hitler, racism, sexism, lgbt bashing etc etc are all grounds for getting banned. But winding people up with unpopular opinion surely has to be fair game for an internet forum? If nothing else, the opposing viewpoint whether genuinely held or deliberately manufactured to outrage the indiginous self selected user group of a special interest forum helps us to share the devastating counter arguments to such opinions which some people out in the wider world do actually have with regard to cyclists and our rights as road users. Personally I have come to some different conclusions having read opinions on this site that I disagreed with and subsequently went and researched. SuperPython 59, Willo and now BikeLikeBike. I salute fallen foes.

For what reason was SP59 banned?

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

For what reason was SP59 banned?

Too much boring helmet chat.

Rich_cb wrote:

Looks like someone has been sent back under his bridge.

Let us hope it's a weak bridge with a HGV about to cross it...

Rich_cb wrote:

Looks like someone has been sent back under his bridge.

Think they've been hit with the Troll Hammer

https://youtu.be/CJhi43RntJk

nbrus wrote:

Van driver deserved to be sacked for that outragous manouver ... he had a right to be angry, but using his van as a weapon is beyond belief ... should get jail time if I had my way.

Cyclist should not have been in the middle of the lane ... there was plenty of room for a safe overtake without him blocking the entire lane to other traffic. Do pedestrians/walkers put themselves in the middle of the road to stop vehicles overtaking (there are no pavements on that road)? No, because that would be way too dangerous. A bike is no wider than a pedestrian and not much faster when compared to other traffic. Glad he's ok, but imagine the carnage if he was two-abreast with a riding buddy.

Yes, I can understand my opinion will not be welcome, but as most here are themselves road cyclists it isn't surprising that most opionions will be fairly one-sided in regards to taking the lane. I will even do it myself when necessary, but I think in this example it was not.

How much gap do you think a cyclist should leave between themselves and the kerb?

How much gap should a driver leave between their vehicle and a cyclist when overtaking?

Looking at the photo at the top of this story it seems pretty obvious that there isn't enough space for a safe overtaking manoeuvre that doesn't involve crossing into the other lane.

Rich_cb wrote:

nbrus wrote:

Van driver deserved to be sacked for that outragous manouver ... he had a right to be angry, but using his van as a weapon is beyond belief ... should get jail time if I had my way.

Cyclist should not have been in the middle of the lane ... there was plenty of room for a safe overtake without him blocking the entire lane to other traffic. Do pedestrians/walkers put themselves in the middle of the road to stop vehicles overtaking (there are no pavements on that road)? No, because that would be way too dangerous. A bike is no wider than a pedestrian and not much faster when compared to other traffic. Glad he's ok, but imagine the carnage if he was two-abreast with a riding buddy.

Yes, I can understand my opinion will not be welcome, but as most here are themselves road cyclists it isn't surprising that most opionions will be fairly one-sided in regards to taking the lane. I will even do it myself when necessary, but I think in this example it was not.

How much gap do you think a cyclist should leave between themselves and the kerb? How much gap should a driver leave between their vehicle and a cyclist when overtaking? Looking at the photo at the top of this story it seems pretty obvious that there isn't enough space for a safe overtaking manoeuvre that doesn't involve crossing into the other lane.

Err, take another look at the attached picture ... the lane is clearly twice the width of that van, so plenty of space to overtake safely without crossing lanes ... that is if the cyclist had showed good judgment and not chosen to blocked the lane.

nbrus wrote:

Err, take another look at the attached picture ... the lane is clearly twice the width of that van, so plenty of space to overtake safely without crossing lanes ... that is if the cyclist had showed good judgment and not chosen to blocked the lane.

 

The van in the picture is touching the centre of the road, illegal when there are double whites.

There is also no gap whatsoever between the van and bike.

So I don't think that picture does show sufficient space.