Passenger filmed climbing out of a moving car and trying to push cyclist

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Rubbish, you can't infer that at all, but I'm sorry if you feel upset by the presence of someone with a different opinion to you. He is far more likely (in my view) to have been trying to scare the cyclist and/or shout abuse at them. And while this is the likeliest scenario, I don't think there would be sufficient evidence to prove this beyond reasonable doubt. For example, in a court of law the passenger could claim he was merely imitating the crowds at the Tour de France by saying "allez allez allez!" in encouragement as they drove past. If he and the driver had wanted to push over the cyclist, he'd have pushed over the cyclist - it wouldn't exactly be a difficult feat would it?

So far more likely to be wanting to "scare the cyclist"?  so you have just admitted that you think the passenger has commited a section 4 public order offence despite the fact that you stated quite clearly that you didn't think there was an offence committed?

Not only that, the nature of the three point seatbelt in a car would mean that the passenger would have had to unclip their seatbelt to get to the position that they got to to try and attack the cyclist means they have also committed a road traffic act.

Ok then, to put it beyond reasonable doubt for you..... There is no justifiable reason for the passenger of the vehicle to lean out of their vehicle to shout "allez allez allez" in encouragment because they can shout that with their seatbelt on and their window rolled down without attempting to strike the cyclist.

But yes your opinion would most likely be prevalent in a Jury because more jurors would be car drivers as opposed to cyclists and as such they could put themselves in the position of the people in the car and come up with any reason, just like you have, to not hold the people in the car accountable for their actions.  And this is why there will never be any change in drivers attitudes because the courts will not convict

Nigel Garrage wrote:

Nothing to do with car drivers vs cyclists - it's just a logical conclusion looking unemotionally at the facts at hand. And as everyone here knows I'm a keen cyclist myself. Such a keen cyclist I got accused of "virtue signalling" last time I posted a ride.

Emotion has absolutely nothing to do with my arguments and it is nothing to do with motorists vs cyclists.  I would have exactly the same response if it was a pedestrian/motorcyclist on the receiving end of the same action.

As for intent.  I will go back to my baseball bat analogy.  If someone was to be caught of film swinging a baseball bat at someones head and missing.  And that made its way to court would you still be saying that it would be impossible for anyone to prove intent?  That the jury would just believe the accused who said..... I was just practicing my swing and their head was just close to where I happened to swing the bat?  or I was never intending to hit them?

The fact is all of the actions of the passenger are predisposed to it being a deliberate act against the cyclist with intent as opposed to there not being acutal intent for the passenger to try and harm the cyclist. and the facts are :-
 - the passenger rolled down their window and leaned out to around waist level on the direct approach to another road user
 - the passenger took a swing at the other road user and missed
 - the passenger then climbed back in the car after passing the other road user.

Any reasonable person in possession of those 3 facts would come to the conclusion, beyond reasonable doubt that the ONLY reason for those 3 actions was an intent to cause harm to the other road user.

Nigel Garrage wrote:

I'm not "admitting" anything, as my opinion hasn't changed

If going from "It's really hard to tell the intention of the passenger in the video but it's likely to be poorly motivated given the way he leans out of the window - no point really speculating and no prosecutable offence was committed, so it's a bit of a pointless story." to.... "Yes on balance I think the passenger has committed an offence"  is not a change in your opinion then I don't know what is.

The fact that you don't think there is sufficient evidence to prosecute does not change the fact that any offence is a prosecutable offence

Nigel Garrage wrote:

If he and the driver had wanted to push over the cyclist, he'd have pushed over the cyclist - it wouldn't exactly be a difficult feat would it?

I not so sure... last article I saw where a passenger killed a cyclist by push her off her bike from a moving car, he managed to kill himself too.

This is exactly why the driver and passenger need to be questioned about their intent and then prosecuted so that they can explain their intent in open court.

Maybe there is a perfectly reasonable explanation involving the capture of a golden snitch in the quidditch, or whatever it is European team games are going on at the moment, and the cyclist was actually a pitch invader.

But you can buy a pie barm, so it's not all bad.

What time is it when there's a meat pie on the clock in Wigan?

Summat to eight.

Have you ever cycled down New Hall Lane in Preston? It makes Wigan look like Mayfair in London.

Can you please not use the 'R' word - it is extremely offensive.

And our friend swldxer seems to be his usual corrective self in the comments too...

I'm still wondering what the other side of the story is and how this works with other crimes : when someone is burgled, robbed, has their car stolen etc

hirsute wrote:

I'm still wondering what the other side of the story is and how this works with other crimes : when someone is burgled, robbed, has their car stolen etc

Clearly you shouldn't buy stuff people might want to steal ...