clikeelinky
Dear All,
This is quite a telling video in my humblest opinion.
What are your thoughts on it???
Radgeworks
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
Audi Passenger Assaults Cyclist (london) Video
(19 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
What the article doesn't show from the video is that the audi doesn't "nudge" into the box as the first paragraph suggets. It is behind the box on red as cyclists arrive. Then more and more cyclists arrive in the box which clearly annoys the driver as it suddenly lurches into the box (still on red,) nearly knocking off the guy in the wooly hat and long coat, who qquite rightly gives the driver a word of "advice" before speeding off down the road out the ASL box ahead of all the cyclists.
The guy who ends up getting hit is not just annoyed because the car "nudged" into the box, he's annoyed and worked up and probably recovering from a bit of a fright because of the use of the car as a battering ram to force the driver's impatient way to the front.
While not neccessarily condoning or defending swearing at a drivist, I do it all the time myself as an almost reflex reaction to their dangerous waving around of thousands of kilos of metal powered by hundred of horses powers. When you've just got your own flesh and bone to protect you and some flimsy layers of fabric and/or polystyrene, you're vulnerable and well aware of it. And you do curse and swear because you haven't got a horn and you want to know the p**lock in the car know how dangerous their actions have been.
The passenger escalates this to a point of assault. I'd like to see the driver done for careless driving and the passenger for assault. I don't think there's an offence of swearing at someone as a respose to someone who behaves like that on the road. They could probably do the cyclist with "furious cycling" as he fairly motored off after the Audi to catch it.
Posted 11 years ago # -
If you think the EEN is bad then DON'T READ THE COMMENTS!
Posted 11 years ago # -
They could probably do the cyclist with "furious cycling" as he fairly motored off
Only if his furious cycling led to the injury of others.
I've been doing a fair bit of driving the past week or so, and once or twice I've caught myself with a mindset I don't really like. I don't just 'drive', I drive always aware of how I'm driving, in relation to others and the general road capacity. Though this morning when it took twice as long to drive as cycle to work thanks to bus lanes I can't motorbike in and dense traffic I can't filter past, my patience and calm demeanor was being tested.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@kaputnik - The car is no where near knocking the cyclist over, yes he shouldn't have moved into the ASL, but at least be realistic with your comments!
If someone came up to my car and started screaming abuse at my and banging on the window I'd have got out and confronted him as well (especially if the kids were in the car), though wouldn't have clocked him.
Basically its down to 2 twats on the road, one on the bike and one in the car. Both are in the wrong and doesn't help the ongoing argument going on between bikers and drivers.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Surely any sane person would realise they were in the wrong (the car driver) and apologise. I must admit that I admire the restraint shown by the cyclist after being hit as I would have retailiated without thinking.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I reckon that anyone who travels on two wheels would benefit by reading Motorcycle Roadcraft;
http://www.tsoshop.co.uk/bookstore.asp?FO=1269577&DI=630352
Sounds like @Arellcat maybe already has - it encourages a mindful riding style, based on a constant internal monologue of hazard perception and risk control. You are encouraged to regard your own state of mind as a potential hazard. Almost every time I've had an 'incident' retrospect has shown that I could have avoided it had I been paying better attention.
You cannot win a fight with a car.
Posted 11 years ago # -
but at least be realistic with your comments!
Not knocking "off", perhaps, knocking "into" would be closer. However a car forcing it's way into an ASL that is already full of cyclists is near enough in my book - whether or not it was 1 inches or 4 inches or 12 inches away, it's too close and entirely unwarranted. An unneccessary close miss on the road is unneccessary full stop.
If someone came up to my car and started screaming abuse at my and banging on the window I'd have got out and confronted him as well
So it's OK to respond to this kind of "threat" posed by the cylist with confrontation, but not to respond to the original threat posed by the driver with any form of confrontation? When does it become OK to respond to confrontation? Should the cyclists all just take it on the chin (figuratively) and tut and say "bl***y drivers" every time someone acts like that? Is there never any grounds to respond / rise to this sort of action?
The initial provocation came from the actions of the driver alone (HWC rule 176 broken, this is also a criminal offence, not just broken etiquette), which then escalated as the cyclist responded, then again escalated as the driver takes off from the junction around them from the ASL (rule 178 broken).
The cyclist has obviously decided at this point to remonstrate further as he makes such an effort to catch up. Again situation escalates because of this, but nothing criminal or illegal has been done and it's entirely subjective whether or not this is the right thing to do. Some would. Some wouldn't. It was a personal choice. However, by getting out of the vehicle and knocking him off his bike, the passenger crosses a certain legal line and this is definitely an unwarranted escalation.
So it can of course be argued that the situation needlessly escalated, but it would never have happened if the driver (and passenger) hadn't acted as they had - it wasn't an accidental roll into the ASL, it was two separate decisions that were deliberate, aggressive, confrontational and liable to be dangerous, which in the process committed a number of specific offences. And it wasn't an accident to get out of the car and hit the guy, again it was an aggressive choice they made that could not be construed as self-defence.
For reference from HWC -
176 (relevant to ASLs)
You MUST NOT move forward over the white line when the red light is showing. Only go forward when the traffic lights are green if there is room for you to clear the junction safely or you are taking up a position to turn right. If the traffic lights are not working, treat the situation as you would an unmarked junction and proceed with great care.178
Advanced stop lines... ...Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.Posted 11 years ago # -
What kaputnik said.
Posted 11 years ago # -
What Zesty said.
Basically its down to 2 twats on the road, one on the bike and one in the car. Both are in the wrong and doesn't help the ongoing argument going on between bikers and drivers
Posted 11 years ago # -
Not knocking "off", perhaps, knocking "into" would be closer.
He was 2 feet from the cyclist is not knocking "into"
So it's OK to respond to this kind of "threat" posed by the cylist with confrontation, but not to respond to the original threat posed by the driver with any form of confrontation?In my eyes there was no threat from the driver, yes he was wrong to encroach into the ASL but he was far enough away from the cyclist. The cyclist made it worse by chargin after him and banging on the car window, did you see/hear the driver shouting back????
If the cyclist starts arguing with the people in the car he has to expect some sort of come back whether it be verbal or physical.
In the end the driver, passenger and cyclist were all in the wrong
Posted 11 years ago # -
I saw this on roadcc back when it had 'only' 50k views on youtube, I was considering posting it up here, but I refrained as everywhere else I'd seen it discussed had boiled down to believing either the driver was a twat, the cyclist was a twat, or both were exhibiting twatiness. Beyond that there was no shortage of armchair experts telling us how they'd have handled it so much better, or what they driver/cyclist should have done, how it might have gone better if XYZ had happened. Beyond that all was drowned out by the usual frothing outrage that surrounds these events.
Still, for what it's worth, I don't think anyone there came out of it looking good. The difficulty is in saying I don't think the cyclist was wise to shout the abuse, without coming across as saying that made the assault somehow okay or justified. As I said though, I've seen this debated and argued to death already in bike forums, car forums, newspaper comments (!) etc, and the problem is that it goes far beyond the actual incident, you get down to fundamental issues about self defence, provocation, appropriate response and the like.
Posted 11 years ago # -
They may both be twats but the driver is the primary instigating twat and at each instance, the escalating twat. Even if we're talking about degrees of twattishness, the driver is by far the Alpha Twat.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Knowing riding in London I think the Audi driver was incredibly dangerous with the way that he sped off. Peds/riders could have easily come a cropper if he'd lost control slightly. He's just lucky that noone was pulling off.
I think that the wooly hat man thought that the audi was rather too close to his feet for comfort when he pulled off. I would tend to agree.
Audi driver completely in the wrong. Wooly hat man I imagine had an amount of pent up rage, but I do NOT think he was a twat. He was more keen to suggest that the audi should perhaps think a bit more about his choices in life.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I have to vehemently disagree with you both, zesty and grahamn. Coming from someone who has been at the receiving end of the force of a car whose driver wanted their vehicle to be where my body was at the specific point in time, I have zero tolerance for any of the attitude displayed by either driver or passenger: dangerous, reckless and arrogant.
I hope the cyclist in question gets in touch with the police and forcefully pushes the police to bring both the driver and passenger to book.
Aspersions on the likenesses of the key protagonists to female anatomy aside, the crux of the issue here is that when you can't treat people with the respect they deserve, you can't really be expected to be trusted with a machine capable of the level of damage you can cause in a car. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
The more cyclists speak up for their safety on the road, and against behaviour such as is exhibited in the video above, can only help.
For what it's worth - I can't help other cyclists who don't obey the laws of the road, but I can help the cause of myself and fellow cyclists by obeying the laws of the road myself and verbally and firmly objecting to instances where my life is recklessly endangered simply because I am seen as a lesser citizen on the roads.
Posted 11 years ago # -
IMO, the cyclist was an idiot. He started a confrontation by calling the driver a "f***ing p****". He had to realise one possible outcome would be a physical confrontation.
However, that doesn't justify assault and I hope the police are able to track down the car and charge both the driver and the passenger.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I've seen enough of these incidents on YouTube (and I know they are few and far between in real life) to know that I will never at the time confront a motorist who does something unpleasant or aggressive or stupid. You just never know what kind of nutter you're provoking and what the reaction might be. I'm not competent to deal with a violent physical assault, and I'll never come off well from it. Also, I don't reckon that an effing and blinding match with someone helps them to understand their shortcomings
I do have a camera on the bike, though, and just because I won't confront them doesn't mean I won't report them later. They are more likely to learn from a calm discussion with their employer or the police than they are from shouting at me.
Revenge is a dish best eaten cold...
Posted 11 years ago # -
I also saw this on Road.cc, but first on Bike Radar.
I don't think the Daily Whail video is as clear. As far as my ears can make out, the cyclist doesn't say anything about his foot. I believe he asked if the driver wanted and "<expletive> fine". I also don't know where the comments about banging on the window come from as we don't see that.
All that aside, the cyclist gives the impression of being a pretty tense rider and, being in London, I can understand that. I too would have challenged the driver on entering the ASL box, particularly with the aggressive manner in which it was done - definitely intimidatory. That said, the hell for leather chase to the next lights to shut aggressively at him was never likely to end well, again, especially in London and with an Audi driver. I don't blame the cyclist for being angry or even for making his point, but he took a big risk.
The occupants of the car should be ashamed of themselves and both driver and passenger should have the book thrown at them. What started out as a transgression that the driver should have acknowledged and backed down from (i.e. not escalating things by aggressively moving further into the box) ended up as a vicious assault.
The occupants should have hefty fines, a driving ban and, IMO, jail time. The cyclist should have a stern warning as to how to deal with the situation but I don't see that it is worthy of court time. The fact he received a pasting ought to be (unfair) punishment enough.
As for the police not taking action unless the cyclist comes forward? Ridiculous. As somebody said in a comment on Bike Radar, how do they proceed with murder cases if they require the victim to come forward?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Some of the Whail's captions are (intentionally?) inaccurate:
"Audi A7 which had crept into the zone", making it seem like a minor thing, and then ignoring the intimidatory forceful incursion.
"Anger: A passenger emerged from the car and began to fight back against the cyclist" Fight back? There was no fight until the passenger assaulted the rider.
"Grapple: Horrified bystanders looked on as the two men fought in the middle of stationary traffic
" The two men did not "fight" - one man punched another to the ground. It was all one way physical violence.Even the cartoon is a poor choice, despite it showing a motorist with boxing gloves on.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
