Front door cam captures moment driver rear-ended cyclist; Which makes more sense? City cyclists stream past SUV; King G; Celebrity Cycling Champion Chart; Fixie feline; Bike tattoos; 'Allez Opi-Omi' debate; BikeisBest ad; New kit + more on the live blog

"War on Some Drugs" * of course - unless you want to go further for religious reasons (you might be a Mormon for example). I agree that - as I posted previously - drugs are everywhere from the bottom to the top of society.

I'm happy to join you in wanting more effective enforcement against anyone driving poorly on our roads. As you know alcohol / drug driving is one of the few "impairments" which are currently socially unacceptable. Other less "triggering" causes like tiredness and phone use have been experimentally shown to be comparably debilitating. I'm still not sure why these - along with excess speed, demonstrable lack of observation or driving knowing you've a medical impairment that affects your ability - don't merit the same societal condemnation and indeed legal repercussions. It's not simply a matter of ease of being able to prove things in court. We have all read stories of people driving off following collisions and simply waiting for their levels of intoxication to fall so proving even these cases may need other detective work.

Perhaps you could shed some light on this? None of these seem the polite thing to do!

* "We are losing the 'War on Drugs,' which means there's a war going on and people on drugs are winning it." - Bill Hicks

Not "negligent". You'd likely struggle to get a conviction without further evidence but more like assault than even "dangerous driving".

The road pinch points was not the issue, incident occurred after the pinch point. It actually looks like Gethins friend actually looks behind and remonstrates about how close the driver is(def a WTF shouted) and then the toot / hit happens. Why was that not careless driving charges?

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

The road pinch points was not the issue, incident occurred after the pinch point. It actually looks like Gethins friend actually looks behind and remonstrates about how close the driver is(def a WTF shouted) and then the toot / hit happens. Why was that not careless driving charges?

I'd be going for a dangerous driving charge.  I would argue that deliberately driving your car into the back of a vulnerable road user meets the threshold of driving far below the standard expected of a competent driver and presented clear danger of injury to the cyclist.

That said, pinch-points and give-way chicanes etc are generally detrimental to safety, and increase noise and emissions.  

So, I dont really agree with Gethin over the road design, but he is very reluctant to ride on the roads at all and will go out of his way to use "cycling infrastructure" whereas i'm entitled to use the roads, and will not be intimidated off them.

but thats by the by

Yes, the intention of the driver is to pass through the pinch point I then turn, and paraphrasing ' WTF, you're going to run into me'

the police were informed by him that there was an 'altercation' prior to the crash, which to me implys intent. so i cant see how they let him off

Have you claimed off the drivers insurance for damages. 

If you can I would take it further then with the Police complaint. After all you have a front facing camera on which would have recorded any previous altercation, but even if there was, as you say it then becomes assault, not a minor driving offence. 

Matthew Boswell wrote:

the police were informed by him that there was an 'altercation' prior to the crash, which to me implys intent. so i cant see how they let him off

should not be considered as mitigation. The only possible defence against assault would be didn't see, which given the position of the bike in front of the car suggests a level of attention reaching dangerous rather than careless.

The fact the driver has admitted he knew the cyclist was ahead, proves the impact was deliberate and strong action needs to be taken. If I whack someone with a cricket bat following an altercation, will the police let me off because someone said bad words to me?

Does it read that I think it is mitigating?

I completely agree

By "implies intent" what I'm saying is he has looked at the situation, fully aware of my presence (no SMIDSY here) and the fact I'm unhappy with his prior actions. Then deliberately run into me, using his vehicle as a weapon.

Matthew Boswell wrote:

Does it read that I think it is mitigating? I completely agree By "implies intent" what I'm saying is he has looked at the situation, fully aware of my presence (no SMIDSY here) and the fact I'm unhappy with his prior actions. Then deliberately run into me, using his vehicle as a weapon.

No, you were quite clear, but given the lack of prosecution, it seems the police  may have felt the cyclists is culpablke for provoking.

I wasn't suggesting that it was a pass through the pinch point - rather that they weren't able to pass through the pinch point, so then snatched at the first opportunity to do so as soon as it widened up again without looking to see if there was space to do so. I find stupid close and/or into oncoming traffic passes are particularly common on those stretches immediately following pinch points, presumably because they've enhanced the driver's perception of being 'held up'.

We now have from the horse's mouth, though, that apparently we were both wrong, and it was through the pinch point. To which the only reasonable response seems to be the same as his - WTF?!?

Nigel Garrage wrote:

• There was an impatient driver behind the cyclist who was probably following closely. Possibly had been following for quite a while before the video was edited, hard to tell

Hard to tell, and irrelevant. It's not a reason to ram somebody off their bike. Nor is it a valid response to any kind of comment, whether or not they could hear.  The driver was not simply impatient.  Impatience might lead to a sigh of frustration, a tut, if you will. This was blatent aggression and a failure to separate emotion from the one job that driver had at that time.

GMBasix wrote:

Hard to tell, and irrelevant. It's not a reason to ram somebody off their bike. Nor is it a valid response to any kind of comment, whether or not they could hear.  The driver was not simply impatient.  Impatience might lead to a sigh of frustration, a tut, if you will. This was blatent aggression and a failure to separate emotion from the one job that driver had at that time.

Spot on, but even when I cyclist is literally rammed by a car, Nigel has to find a way to find fault with the cyclist.

However his take does answer some things about our Boo.
I mean you can quite clearly hear the cyclist go "What the Fuck" as driver is literally brushing his back wheel. (easy to sync up the times between the two to show that was almost the frame he entered the other video at) but as our Boo definitely gets the insult thrown at him lots of times in his life, that is what he heard. It was probably how his mum ended the message to him where she linked the DM video of digusting cyclists. 
I would point out the Van in both videos pretty much disputes the "following for quite awhile narrative" but we all know Nige only sees what he wants to see. 

The cyclist quite clearly shouted "what the fuck?" New low in lying victim blaming even for an expert such as yourself.

NO!

The guy who hit me wasnt even close to the flatbed, let alone being held up by me. its a 20mph zone, had it not been for the roaring headwind. i'd have been comfotabley doing above that (checked strava, was doing ~18).

I actually said "what the fuck" as I couldn't comprehend someone thinking of making such a ridiculous manoeuvre, i wasn't actually abusing him.

Even after the crash, (in my high piched squeally voice after the wind is knocked out of me ) it's disbelief at what has happened more than anything else 

Thanks for coming on here and posting, Matthew.  I hope you're ok after this horrible incident.  And ignore Nigel's sanctimonious rubbish.

Ignore Boo, he is called a twat so often by people in his life that he automatically hears it when trying to blame cyclists for bad driving. He was trying to "score points" on other posters on here using your misfortune. He should offer a grovelling apology to you but based on his reponses to other people who have proved him wrong I doubt you will get one. 

Nigel (booboojmooj/tt danger/youareallcyberbullies) is the resident Wind Up Merchant and did promise to leave the site and never return. Although they did manage a 2 week ban.

It is a waste of time taking any notice of their comments as his MO is to blame the cyclist regardless.

As others have said, Nigel comes on here to be wrong, usually by several orders of magnitude (although he doesn't know what this actually means). It would have far more disturbing had he supported you.

Thank you for your positive contributions and may you always have a tailwind. 

Nigel Garrage wrote:

To be clear, I stated in my first post that I hold the driver culpable, and don't consider you at fault for what happened. However, it's useful to understand what can trigger angry drivers.

On the contrary: It is actually quite useless to speculate about this or to think that a cyclist could have any influence over someone who behaves irrationally in this manner.

A point for neck-winding-in and (possibly) acknowledging one's own biases. Your story's still the same but then everyone holds on to their own. I couldn't apologise for judging you - even if I wanted to because you'd been more empathetic - because I think that might offend you and you don't seem to be on here for solidarity. But it is an internet forum...

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Here's what happened:

• There was an impatient driver behind the cyclist who was probably following closely. Possibly had been following for quite a while before the video was edited, hard to tell - could be solved by posting a longer clip from the cyclist's video camera.
• Cyclist shouted the gendered abuse "fuck off twat".
• Car driver got angry and knocked him off his bike.

Driver is guilty, but that, in a nutshell, is why I don't shout gendered insults as I cycle along.

you think the respose would be any different to "fuck off moron" (a non gendered insult.)?

And all they got was a course.

No wonder I am losing my faith in the Police.

hirsute wrote:

And all they got was a course.

No wonder I am losing my faith in the Police.

Was it the police or CPS?

Police offer a course don't they instead of prosecution? Didn't think the CPS do those but correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems the Police saw this as the same as a close pass or minor speeding offence. Not an RTC where the driver decided to ram into the vehicle in front causing injury and damage. 

Too many NFAs for me

I spoke to a cycle club/group bloke who said they had visted essex police and showed them a set of 9 photos of very similar close passes. The police job was then to pick out the single one that they took any action on.

Despite their safer roads policy when it comes down to poor driving, they are not very interested.