Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
danhopgood
Posts: 102
Joined: 20 Jan 2015, 5:16pm

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

Post by danhopgood »

kwackers wrote:Headcam evidence is routinely ignored by the police......

Yep, due to lack of resources.
danhopgood wrote:Lack of enforcement is a problem. People taking the law into their own hands is not the solution to that problem - it'll make things worse - in my view.


kwackers wrote:That may well be true, but in the real world not only is nothing happening but it's actually getting worse. When folk are getting off scott free after killing others then something has to give.
The uncomfortable reality is that if every cyclist who had their safety compromised left a dent in the offenders vehicle then most folk would give us a wide berth and not only that but in an attempt to 'fix' the problem the authorities would be forced to take our concerns on board.


Yep again. When people are getting off scott free for killing someone it tells us something about society - that the majority (i.e. a jury) don't value vulnerable road users as they should. Surely the solution to that is to change the judicial process rather than abandon the law?

If as you suggest every cyclist who thought their safety was compromised left a £300 dent in the cars concerned, what would be the consequence when car drivers though they'd had their safety compromised? They'd take a £300 lump out of the bike of course. Or worse, the cyclist. And their justification would be "cos that's what cyclists do to us" - whether they're actually right or wrong. It's what they think that matters. No rational thought, taking into account all the circumstances.

kwackers wrote:The idea that taking the law into your own hands doesn't provide a solution isn't in itself proven and if nobody else is prepared to do it for you then why shouldn't you do it yourself???


There are plenty of cases where people have ended up in jail for taking the law into their own hands - people who beat up burglars for example. I'd say not getting a criminal record and potentially losing your job, family and friends is a pretty good reason.

Why if the law and enforcement are the problems aren't cyclists acting as one to help those trying to improve things? I see the fund for the private prosecution in the Michael Mason case has yet to reach its target.
pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

Post by pwa »

I'd be unwilling to pass judgement on this case because (confession alert!) I can imagine a (very) slightly unwiser version of myself being on either side of this silly story. Obviously something happened to spark off a bit of road rage. A car door was damaged (yes, I can imagine being stupid enough to do that) and that, I guess, led the driver (already having a techy moment) to become angry and out of control. The cyclist makes off and the driver pursues him. And having caught up, cannot think of any action other than bumping in to him. Hopefully the bump was intended to stop him rather than injure, but I bet even the driver herself is not sure about that. If I had been that driver and done something so stupid and potentially dangerous, I would have regretted it immediately. This mess is what happens when we let anger take over. Reason and fellow feeling go out of the window.

Both parties should have been sent on an anger management course.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

Post by thirdcrank »

danhopgood wrote:
kwackers wrote:Headcam evidence is routinely ignored by the police......

Yep, due to lack of resources..


I don't think that that is correct. Resources will always be finite. What we are talking about is priorities ie how the available resources are used. Traffic enforcement is no longer the priority it once was. This isn't something that can be switched on and off. Or rather, once the experience and expertise have been lost, they will take a long time to rebuild, in the unlikely event that somebody decides that should happen. If people delegated to deal with complaints of bad driving are unaware of the law concerning Notices of Intended Prosecution, it's a sign of how bad things have become.

viewtopic.php?p=873531#p873531

At present, the resources devoted to policing are being reduced, which makes decisions on priorities even more important. If the Michael Mason case shows anything, it's that even the commitment to dealing thoroughly with fatal collisions is threatened.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

Post by kwackers »

danhopgood wrote:Yep, due to lack of resources.

Nothing to do with resources and everything to do with attitude. We have policing that's decided by whatever current itch the public has and nothing at all to do with what's right.
As long as the majority aren't cyclists then don't expect anything to change.
danhopgood wrote:Yep again. When people are getting off scott free for killing someone it tells us something about society - that the majority (i.e. a jury) don't value vulnerable road users as they should. Surely the solution to that is to change the judicial process rather than abandon the law?

Good luck changing that. Trial by jury is sacrosanct to your average Joe, I doubt they'd ever give it up. Which takes me back to the first point; your average juror is a motorist therefore don't expect justice.
They'd take a £300 lump out of the bike of course. Or worse, the cyclist. And their justification would be "cos that's what cyclists do to us" - whether they're actually right or wrong. It's what they think that matters. No rational thought, taking into account all the circumstances.

That may well be true but it's difficult to see how a motorist could defend themselves against such a charge (as this case proves).
danhopgood wrote:There are plenty of cases where people have ended up in jail for taking the law into their own hands - people who beat up burglars for example. I'd say not getting a criminal record and potentially losing your job, family and friends is a pretty good reason.

Hmmm.... You'd have to do something particularly stupid to end up in jail and even then the public are usually of the opinion that burglar deserved it (even when the action in question is shown to be OTT).
Anyway in the case we're talking about kicking a car having been in an altercation where your safety is compromised. I suspect (if caught) you'd be unlucky to end up doing any more than paying for the damage. It'd be a rare case whereby someone ended up in prison for what appears to be a reaction to nearly getting wiped out.

In the long term it's quite likely such behavior would reduce such instances to near zero as well as reducing KSI's significantly. Most motorists don't see cyclists as a threat and so dismiss them. Seen as a threat they'd take notice and avoid.
danhopgood wrote:Why if the law and enforcement are the problems aren't cyclists acting as one to help those trying to improve things? I see the fund for the private prosecution in the Michael Mason case has yet to reach its target.

I think most cyclists think such events are rare, perhaps even brought on by the victim themselves (you see a fair bit of victim blaming on here even on relatively mundane posts. "Your road position is wrong, if that were me..." etc etc).
That combined with actually putting their hands in their pockets...
(FWIW I contributed to the Michael Mason case, just as I've donated to the cyclists defense fund in the past.)
danhopgood
Posts: 102
Joined: 20 Jan 2015, 5:16pm

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

Post by danhopgood »

Kwackers,

Well done for contributing to the CDF and Michael Mason case - making me feel I ought to do the same. However, sorry, but I just can't agree that cyclists breaking the law themselves will do anything get drivers to behave better. That route is a race to the bottom and a very dark and scary place it'd be - in my view.
ChrisButch
Posts: 1188
Joined: 24 Feb 2009, 12:10pm

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

Post by ChrisButch »

danhopgood wrote:Kwackers,

Well done for contributing to the CDF and Michael Mason case - making me feel I ought to do the same. However, sorry, but I just can't agree that cyclists breaking the law themselves will do anything get drivers to behave better. That route is a race to the bottom and a very dark and scary place it'd be - in my view.

Well said.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

Post by kwackers »

danhopgood wrote:Kwackers,

Well done for contributing to the CDF and Michael Mason case - making me feel I ought to do the same. However, sorry, but I just can't agree that cyclists breaking the law themselves will do anything get drivers to behave better. That route is a race to the bottom and a very dark and scary place it'd be - in my view.

I don't really follow why you'd think that to be true.
People avoid punishment. If you got close enough to a cyclist to get a kick most folk would give them a wide berth, why would that not be the case?

Fundamentally though whilst I agree with your statement in principle I'm also beginning to think that without some form of direct action nothing will change, particularly having read all the bumf on the Daniel Squire case.

The basic problem is the system is broken, isn't going to get fixed and turning the other cheek won't help. So until someone comes up with a 'proper' (i.e. workable) solution then simply saying "don't do it, it's wrong" isn't enough.
pwa
Posts: 17371
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

Post by pwa »

Road rage is bad for human health. It really isn't the answer and should be avoided. I know this because I have forcibly removed the wing mirror of a car in reprisal for something a driver said to me, and whilst I "won" that battle it did not make me feel better, and it did not make me feel good about myself. It took me several weeks to begin feeling okay about myself again. I now know the capacity I have for "losing it", and I hope I am now wise enough to avoid that mistake in the future.
Tonyf33
Posts: 3926
Joined: 17 Nov 2007, 3:31pm
Location: Letchworth N.Herts

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

Post by Tonyf33 »

A couple of years back I got rammed into after I 'faced up' sideways on with bike in front & stopped this guy as he tried to drive off after he'd struck me from behind (slowly, denting my mudguard).
He struck fortunately just the crank arm (& left some evidential paintwork from his bumper on it) but forced myself and the bike backwards, frankly that was the last straw and I snapped driving my fist right into the bonnet of his Golf making a sizeable dent. That soon stopped him from driving off.

I then rang the police saying I'd being deliberately driven at. On arrival the copper said well you were the one waving your arms about, I replied wouldn't you be a tad irate if someone deliberately drove a vehicle at you. I explained that my reaction was due this 'bleep' trying to drive over me and my fearful instinct to try to make him stop. He wasn't prepared to do naff-all despite the obvious evidence of the paint on my crank (which was undamaged bar a minor scratch). The plod had 'words' with the driver and as I knew he wasn't going to do anything else about it it was pointless me taking it further, as I had damaged the persons vehicle and he mine he advised him also that we should leave it at that claim wise which I accepted. Alleviating my fear and rage made me feel so much better BTW.

After a couple more incidents over the years I can't predict how I might react the next time someone puts my life seriously at risk or knocks me off, that my natural instincts to 'fight' (as opposed to flight) take over and I completely lose the plot. I have visions of me launching my bike through the windscreen, taking off the panniers and walking off, then regretting it because I'd look even more stupid trying to extract my bike from the car because I actually don't want to lose it..likely it's the difference between the thought and actually doing it, that and the 'grown up' me says I shouldn't anyway.

Revenge on those that have transgressed you isn't a modern day phenomenon...
reohn2
Posts: 45159
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

Post by reohn2 »

pwa wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about this, really. It sounds like a severe loss of cool on both sides. Damaging a car door may be tempting, but it's a bit naughty. And nudging someone off their bike with your car is inexcusable. Not the same as driving into them at speed but, yes, it could cause harm. It sounds like two people having a moment they would rather forget.


And from the other thread on strict liability,was it not the car driver who should pay the greatest penalty for using his one tonne + vehicle as a weapon?
Booting a car bumper is one thing,which could cause more injury to the one doing the kicking than the one being kicked,driving at someone and knocking them of their vehicle is completely another and by far the most aggressive IMHO.It's pure chance that the cyclist wasn't injured.
Much is trumpeted about intention with regard to punishment,it's clear that the motorist had the intention to do bodily harm to someone who caused a small amount of damage to his property.Assault with a weapon(car)would be nearer the mark IMHO.
It's as so often also trumpeted on here,if you want to cause someone damage with the least penalty return use a motor vehicle
Disgraceful IMHO.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
reohn2
Posts: 45159
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

Post by reohn2 »

Bicycler wrote:
blackbike wrote:That fat criminal obviously needs more exercise so a driving ban would do her good.

blackbike wrote:I think they mention it because she is wearing such a poor choice of clothes herself. They show off her fat figure to maximum effect.

Less of the fat stuff please. It just stigmatises innocent people. Her body shape is utterly irrelevant to her horrible actions.

I quite agree.
Though equally bizarre and irrelevant are the people who the defendant designed clothes for,(which are people I've never heard of), but put forward as if I should and as if they should have a bearing on the matter :roll: :?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
pete75
Posts: 16370
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

Post by pete75 »

If as stated she deliberately ran into the cyclist she should have been charged with and convicted of dangerous driving not careless. How can a deliberate act be called careless. To be fair the cyclist should have been charged with criminal damage.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
recumbentpanda
Posts: 286
Joined: 6 Apr 2009, 12:13pm

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

Post by recumbentpanda »

The problem with self help justice is that it opens the possibility of a descent into vigilanteism and cycles of revenge. The prevention of this is one of the most important reasons for having a police force and a justice system. The lack of traffic policing is threatening us with just this situation right now on the roads. As the motorists have the heavier weapons, their form of 'self-help' justice tends to prevail.

As to trial by jury, personally I get itchy when people start to threaten it, just as I do when people question the Bill of Human Rights. The way forward I suggest is in the wording: 'tried by a jury of their peers' (eg, equals). Cyclists defence lawyers should perhaps challenge the composition of juries as the 'peers' of a cyclist would not be a bunch of motorists.
Tom Richardson
Posts: 772
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 1:45pm

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

Post by Tom Richardson »

reohn2 wrote:
And from the other thread on strict liability


no need for strict liability here - they've already got it (presumed liability anyway)

because the driver has been prosecuted for driving without due care and attention (and no MOT!) there will be a presumption of her liability for negligence (in court) if the cyclist sues her. Her insurers will know that and most likely just pay up without going to court if the cyclist claims. i.e. the cyclist can claim from her for costs and damages to him and to his bike so that he is at least no worse off from the incident.
reohn2
Posts: 45159
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Ramming cyclist at only 10mph is OK

Post by reohn2 »

recumbentpanda wrote:The problem with self help justice is that it opens the possibility of a descent into vigilanteism and cycles of revenge. The prevention of this is one of the most important reasons for having a police force and a justice system. The lack of traffic policing is threatening us with just this situation right now on the roads. As the motorists have the heavier weapons, their form of 'self-help' justice tends to prevail.

As to trial by jury, personally I get itchy when people start to threaten it, just as I do when people question the Bill of Human Rights. The way forward I suggest is in the wording: 'tried by a jury of their peers' (eg, equals). Cyclists defence lawyers should perhaps challenge the composition of juries as the 'peers' of a cyclist would not be a bunch of motorists.


I completely agree,and though supposed to be neutral judges can of either persuasion,and so could result in a bit of a cleft stick situation :?

IMHO the cyclist should have been fined or at least made to pay compensation to the vehicle owner for damage,but it still didn't give her any right to deliberately run into the cyclist as I posted up thread it's pure chance the cyclist wasn't injured,the driver had no way of knowing how her deliberate and malicious act would turn out.
Also by the fact that the car wasn't road worth(no effective MOT) and therefore shouldn't have even been on the road at all,should have carried a heavy fine and extra points on the drivers licence.

On the point of policing,any syclist fule kno policeman don't give a monkeys for up holding the law when cyclists complain ,even if they have video evidence as proof! :?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Post Reply