Cyclist shares shocking footage of driver ramming him off bike after close pass complaint, slams suspended sentence "an absolute waste of time"

brooksby wrote:

Spammercial wrote:

Nice...I'll check if the guy I want to kill rides a bike...in case...I'll do it without any risk...thank you very much

You already have someone you want to kill?? 

S'fine - they can just say it was someone else they wanted to kill but this one was just an accident.

She needs to be off of the roads permanently, or at least until a medical professional confirms she is no longer a danger to other road users.

I would have liked the driver to be charged for both careless driving for the close pass and dangerous driving or assault for the the attack.

Idealy the would have been locked up for that assault and a lengthy ban from driving.   It was clearly a physically assault with a weapon of over a ton in weight.

However.... I too do question the wisdom of the cyclist putting themselves back in front of that car - this was clearly deliberate on their part and did nothing to descalate the situation.

I personally would have either held back or done my best to sail off into the distance.

You see someone who is using something weighty as a weapon in a threatening manner - do you steer clear or engage?

Indeed - better to be alive than dead sat on top of the moral high ground.

Yes. Having a camera avoids the need to have an argument. Record, report and let the police deal with it.

(I appreciate the police response varies according to force).

Agree, you cannot change all shitheads. Stay safe, report rathen confront.

The first one " I've got you on camera " was ok I think but after that, I would not want them behind me. Very hard to control that flight or fight when your life is put at risk though.

But remember folks, people on twitter will tell you you should have a dialogue with drivers so they can understand what they did wrong.
This is The Way.

Hirsute wrote:

The first one " I've got you on camera " was ok I think but after that, I would not want them behind me.

Not excusing any behaviour or victim blaming here, but...

If you have to confront the driver, then I'd probably recommend at least saying something constructive like "that was way too close, wait until after the pinch-point". I think most drivers are just inept rather than outright malicious and it's very possible that she is such a shit driver that she didn't think she'd done anything wrong.

If that's the case, then just going over and shouting "I've got you on camera" is just escalation for escalation's sake - it's not going to put the driver right if they're so incompitent they don't know what they've done.

Like I said, I'm not aiming to victim blame here - the initial close pass was unacceptable, and the fact the driver's reaction to a simple rebuke should have landed her in prison - but I sure as hell wouldn't have done what John did here.

Very sensible approach and one that will lead to fewer hospital visits.  Wonder if the rider thought all that overtaking and shouting was worth it to admonish a shit driver for a close pass? Dont f about when you are vulnerable and you dont know who you are dealing with - thats my approach in the car even - just let the video talk.

The last one I spoke to when I asked if she thought she could have got a bit closer just now replied with "I didn't hit you".

I try to say something like "That was really close, it's scary when you drive like that." in a neutral way and then leave it at that. 'Scary' sounds pretty dumb, but it seems to work better than the other things I've said. This is when they've close passed and then I've caught up with them at the lights / traffic.

How about right and alive. What do you think the police would have done had the cyclist just submitted the footage of the close pass. My guess is absolutely nothing but words of advice at the most. As a result of this cyclist's brave and selfless actions this driver is off the road for a while (not long enough in my opinion) and unable to put another cyclist's life in danger. He has done us all a favour unlike the legal system.

I for one would like to thank the cyclist and really hope that he makes a full recovery and gets back on his bike when the time is right. I understand what he's going through. I could barely cross the road after someone ran in to the back of my car when stopped in a line of traffic. I thought the cars were all going way too fast and out to get me at the time. It does pass.

It's because arrogant people in cars are protected, that they behave like this. Get them out of the car and suddenly, they realise what a f**k**t they are. 

As I also motorcycle, I can state that I believe everyone incapable of driving a nail in, let alone a motor vehicle. I factor in that everyone wants to kill me, if they can get away with it. Which as we know, drivers often do. 

This has led me to certain attitudes like pushing 400w on a bicycle along a suburban road with severe speed humps when impatient t**t is up my a**e, to then hear their exhaust system being torn off over speed hump unnoticed in rage against cyclist....

...do I stop to help? Of course not. I do wish I could achieve this feat more often though, like 5 times a day. 

I'm sure you don't mean it but your comment does tend towards victim-blaming. This incident happened because Torgerson is a dangerous driver and a violent criminal. Not because the cyclist was a bit annoyed.

There's victim blaming, and then there is stating the obvious. I personally think there is a valid point here, namely that escalating a situation, tends to... well escalate a situation. 

My friend recently bought cameras for his bike purely to help him avoid getting involved like this. Now, whenever he is a victim of poor driving, he simply makes a response like 'that was close' or whatever is needed for the footage, and carries on with his ride. His revenge is in submitting the footage. 

Whilst he is no crusading cycling evangelist, his submissions have led to multiple prosecutions.

Revenge is a dish, best served cold my friends. 

Stating the obvious doesn't change anything, Jimmy; it's still victim blaming. It's liking blaming the guy who made a wisecrack someone didn't like for getting the sheet beat out of him. 

cmedred wrote:

Stating the obvious doesn't change anything, Jimmy; it's still victim blaming. It's liking blaming the guy who made a wisecrack someone didn't like for getting the sheet beat out of him. 

It certainly was not victim blaming. To be frank I'm poxed off with the number of times that a valid observation is labelled "victim blaming". You could tell from the overtake she didn't give a FF about the cyclist, what did he achieve by catching up with thsi lunatic driver? That's nothing by the way.

Try improving your comprehension and critical thinking. "There is no excuse for this behaviour" isn't a complex sentence to understand.

Whilst he is no crusading cycling evangelist, his submissions have led to multiple prosecutions

Wow! This is some Herculean achievement! A friend who has only recently bought cameras now has multiple prosecutions to his name already, when most of us find that any action takes months and the police (at least Lancashire Constabulary) refuse to specify what action they have taken. The kindest interpretation I can put to this is that a NIP is being interpreted as a prosecution- a grave mistake where the police are concerned as they have multiple ways of binning action even after they have claimed to be taking some.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

There's victim blaming, and then there is stating the obvious. I personally think there is a valid point here, namely that escalating a situation, tends to... well escalate a situation. 

I can definitely see both sides (although not sure that's allowed BTL).

The issue I have is with "There is no excuse for this behaviour. But"... [my italics]. It's in danger of being the thin end of a wedge ("but if you will cycle on busy roads...", "wear a short skirt", etc.).

Agree - you have the shit driving on camera, no need to get more evidence of shit driving.

Because sometimes you've just had enough with how people treat you on the road and the non response by the police you get, and you stand up for yourself.

Is it wise? probably not,so pick your battles carefully, but if more people called these drivers out more publicly, maybe attitudes would start to change to it.

After all what do you think she'd have got just for the first close pass, a letter ? offer of a driving course at best?

I know, I know and I've done things I regret in that sort of situation. At the end of it, it was his choice and whatever led up to it, he got a fcked bike, fcked body and a horrible bruise. She got 2 years suspended so you (we) can judge who got just deserts. Was it really worth it?

I've done this type of thing in the past chasing after reckless drivers and then realising afterwards how recklessly stupid it is. Sometimes you do get really angry that someone is prepared to risk your life for no reason (they don't even make up any time, as they're stuck in traffic anyway). In this case, they have a camera, they've recorded it. it is best not to engage. The same type of rage that made you engage with them can equally cause them to make rash decisions.

lukei1 wrote:

How can there possibly be mitigation with a previous serious driving conviction ffs

What got me was the fact that the "mitigation" essentially boiled down to "I was in no fit state to be driving, but I was anyway". The fact that it worked is utterly insane. But apparently the government is "cowed by the cycling lobby"...

Incompetence paradox yet again.  Excuse the consequences of my bad driving because I'm not really competent to drive - so it's unfair to hold me responsible.

It only (mostly?) doesn't work any more in the context of "I was drunk / stoned, so you can't expect me to be driving well".  (EDIT still current on road.cc is a case where driving intoxicated was still "careless").

Everything else though?  "I was old" (the other day - and the police even helped with that!).  Medical episode (even if not the first time).  "I was distracted by my kids in the back / calling on my phone" (totally understandable to people - and it's hardly the kids' fault...)

All else fails just say "I don't recall that" and let the defence worry about if the issue is enough to sway the jury's / the judge's tendency to look sympathetically on drivers, well above "beyond reasonable doubt".

Also mitigation - she has mental health challenges which make her prone to using a 2 tonne box as a lethal weapon - and we think this person should be allowed back in a car before that condition is fully dealt with? Clearly not.

Should be minimum of two years and until she gets a clean bill of health that this wont happen again.  Then when she doesn't it again she can't run that tosh in mitigation again.

You can't read much of this one
https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/23895234.costcutter-great-bromley-at...
but the assailant was already on a suspended sentence and previous convictions but no jail

"was serving a suspended prison sentence at the time of the offence" - so why doesn't that immediately become unsuspended?