Cyclist vs White Van Man Twitter Scandal

[bigandclever]

big_boz said:

heebeegeetee said:

big_boz said:

My God there are some moronic comments on here, what the cyclist did is not the issue here at all.

The van driver committed the offence of common assault which WAS pre-meditated and which carries a maximum sentence of 6 months in prison. There is Video evidence of this and he should be prosecuted.

If someone kills another person in this country, it is not acceptable that he/she can be killed or harmed in any way by way of punishment for this crime, that is because will live in a civilized society and have a structure system of Law that should be enforced by the police.

The van driver was not within his rights to commit the assault on the cyclist who, we can see has not caused the van driver and physical arm of any description. The fact that he has not prior convictions is neither here nor there.

And we're still not clear if he has any convictions now.

I was under the impression from the article that he received only a caution for the offence due to his lack of prior convictions?

We know he didn't get a caution. It was sorted by local resolution.

http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/latest-news/pre...

[otolith]

bigandclever said:

We know he didn't get a caution. It was sorted by local resolution.

http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/latest-news/pre...

From this page on local resolution;

"This was an excellent use of the local resolution procedure. The offender has learnt a lesson and literally paid for his mistake. He does not have a criminal record and has not been criminalised and may continue to apply to the Navy."

http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/crime-reduction...

So it looks as if local resolution leaves no trace to be considered in the case of future offences.

[big_boz]

otolith said:

From this page on local resolution;

"This was an excellent use of the local resolution procedure. The offender has learnt a lesson and literally paid for his mistake. He does not have a criminal record and has not been criminalised and may continue to apply to the Navy."

http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/crime-reduction...

So it looks as if local resolution leaves no trace to be considered in the case of future offences.

Great, so he can go and do it again now can he?

[saaby93]

big_boz said:

Great, so he can go and do it again now can he?

as can the cyclist
Seemed a fair resolution to me
With a bit of luck both are more wary and will avoid doing the same again

[big_boz]

saaby93 said:

s can the cyclist
Seemed a fair resolution to me
With a bit of luck both are more wary and will avoid doing the same again

And what law exactly did the cyclist break? OK he may have been a bit dis-courteous but no laws were broken, The van driver committed an actual offence that carries a possible prison sentence, not only that but one of physical violence towards another human being, Do you feel that is acceptable under any circumstances where no psychical act has been committed against an assailant???

I am a cyclist and a driver. I HAVE been accosted by a tt who felt the need to cut me up on a round about despite me using arm signals, i raised my hand at him in disbelief at the fact that he nearly knocked me off. He them proceeded to stop and block me in against a railing and got out of his car. If he had attacked me, i would have defended myself, i am a black belt Third Dan Shotogan Karate, Practiced Kick boxing for almost a decade, and played semi professional Rugby for a number of years in my youth, I have almost no doubt that i would have come off better than him, especially as i was wearing a helmet.....He however saw sense when clearly i wasn't going to run away, and shouted some abuse at me and drove off, now would i have been within my rights to chase after him and then attack him if i caught him up at the next set of traffic lights just because he gave me some verbal? Of course i wouldn't because i am an adult and not a 4 year old child who can not control my temper, and if i had that would have been a common assault or perhaps worse.

All the cyclist did was express his dislike for the fact that the van had not been driving in a courteous manner. The Van driver is clearly not mentally developed enough to be driving a car on the public highway. Unfortunately I see this more and more every day both on my bike and in a car, it is disappointing when the authorities do not take action against individuals when there is actual evidence of wrong doing. If i get caught speeding can i say that i should be let off just because i haven't been caught for over a decade? No

The criminal justice system functions such that you are innocent until proven guilty. There is no hear say or doubt of guilt in this case. The cyclist was assaulted. End of Story.

[AV12]

Just about sums this up now.

[walm]

Boz - we get the picture but to clarify, can you confirm the status of your facial hair and directorships?

For all those with a passing interest in cycling it is blindingly obvious that holding primary position, filtering and sounding a horn of significant volume are all perfectly legal and acceptable ways to go about trying to protect yourself against the tonnes of steel out their driven by cretinous morons who think that "punish overtakes" enhance their little man syndrome.

For the majority of PH though, as this thread ably demonstrates, doing any of those things is variously:
- Worthy of points.
- Worthy of assault.
- Worthy of attacking OTHER cyclists.
- Against what nature intended.

etc...
etc...

But to sum up once more...

BOR said:

tHEY ARE ON YOUR ROADS. rOADS YOU PAID FOR. wITH YOUR ROAD TAX. aND THEY ARE RIDE TWO-ABREAST. yOU CAN'T GET PAST THEM. tHEY ARE NOT HAVE INSURANCE. tHEY ARE NOT STOPPING RED LIGHTS NOT LIKE THE CAR. tHEY fk YOUR WIFE. tHEY ON TELLY ALL THE TIME.

bAD.

[Strawman]

walm said:

For the majority of PH though, as this thread ably demonstrates, doing any of those things is variously:

Do you read threads and take away from them what you want to believe or what is actually posted? The vast majority of people who have replied to this thread do not support attacking someone for percieved driving errors and or aggressive behaviour.
Reading through this thread the majority view seems to be; two idiots met, the above outcome was inevitable one day. Look through some of the examples from the 150+ youtube videos this cyclist has posted in the last year and can you honestly say he doesn't court confrontation?

Edited by Strawman on Wednesday 8th May 14:53

[big_boz]

walm said:

Boz - we get the picture but to clarify, can you confirm the status of your facial hair and directorships?


But to sum up once more...

BOR said:

tHEY ARE ON YOUR ROADS. rOADS YOU PAID FOR. wITH YOUR ROAD TAX. aND THEY ARE RIDE TWO-ABREAST. yOU CAN'T GET PAST THEM. tHEY ARE NOT HAVE INSURANCE. tHEY ARE NOT STOPPING RED LIGHTS NOT LIKE THE CAR. tHEY fk YOUR WIFE. tHEY ON TELLY ALL THE TIME.

bAD.

LOL, no facial hair...but I am actually the Managing Director of my own Company (although it is just me as im a LTD company contractor) and i am quite well built @ c.14st not sure how "powerful" this makes me look though...especially in lycra man tights, wearing a skid lid

Regards Road Tax, neither of the cars in my household currently require me to pay any road tax one due to its age and the other down to the fact that only fairy dust comes out of the exhaust. Does that mean i have no rights when i am driving on the road? ...I eagerly await the obvious comments that say not ...Oh and I do stop at red lights on my bike, I don't think i have ever facebooked your wife, and i don't think i have ever been on Telly

[saaby93]

big_boz said:

saaby93 said:

Seemed a fair resolution to me
With a bit of luck both are more wary and will avoid doing the same again

And what law exactly did the cyclist break?

We'll never know as no charges were laid
but cycling furiously and without due care for other road users may be on the cards
(when he chose to cycle through the car and van while they were trying to park)
If he hadnt done that the rest wouldnt have followed and we wouldnt have this thread
In response as we saw the van driver lost the plot.
The police took a balanced view of what led to what so neither ended up with a record or worse

[Devil2575]

saaby93 said:

We'll never know as no charges were laid

No. As none were laid we must assume no laws were broken. Anything else is pure speculation.

[heebeegeetee]

http://www.cyclorama.net/viewArticle.php?id=62

I totally agree. The coroner in this case is guilty of discrimination.

[Negative Creep]

heebeegeetee said:

http://www.cyclorama.net/viewArticle.php?id=62

I totally agree. The coroner in this case is guilty of discrimination.

Discrimination? Jesus wept. So by that logic bikers shouldn't have to wear crash helmets and car drivers shouldn't have to use seatbelts?

[NicD]

Yes, hope the prick on the bike and the same in the van learnt a lesson.

the lesson is, the prick on the bike who rides like he owns the road wears a headcam.

[10 Pence Short]

otolith said:

From this page on local resolution;

"This was an excellent use of the local resolution procedure. The offender has learnt a lesson and literally paid for his mistake. He does not have a criminal record and has not been criminalised and may continue to apply to the Navy."

http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/crime-reduction...

So it looks as if local resolution leaves no trace to be considered in the case of future offences.

It would more than likely appear on an enhanced CRB check until a suitable period of time has passed that it would be irrelevant.

[otolith]

Procedures documented here. Extent of the papertrail seems to depend on factors like whether the person was arrested.

[10 Pence Short]

Allegations, arrests and even voluntary attendance at the Police station can appear on ECRBs. Whether information appears or not can be down to a decision maker at an individual force, subject to compatibility with legislation, including the Human Rights act.

From the link you posted:

"Offenders must be informed that any information will be available to Chief Officers and may be disclosed under the Criminal Records Bureau 'enhanced disclosure' process."

Edited by 10 Pence Short on Wednesday 8th May 20:27

[otolith]

Indeed. Though I wonder whether that discretion would be exercised in a case like this, wasn't that basically about spotting Huntleys, rather than thugs?