When the police give an assaulted cyclist a warning

[reohn2]

As you've asked directly

The cyclist's situation was very different, because there was no wall - if anything the tarmac to the left and the verge beyond were a place of safety.

There's a kerb,and a real danger of the cyclist falling,all the driver had to do was wait and not accelerate toward the cyclist on his front nearside corner who incidentally had completed the undertake at that point.

In that situation I would not take my hands from the bars and hoods because my overriding concern would be to keep control of the bike and my balance and to steer away from the car. There is absolutely no way I would hit the car in that situation. I've been behind cyclists who have done that, and it has always been done in anger and to lash out

As I posted earlier we'll have to agree to differ.

I think there is a strong temptation in cases like this to ascribe motivations and intent to the cyclist and driver based more on our own experiences and beliefs than the available evidence supports.

The situation was obvious to me if it wasn't to you.
The aggressive Audi driver had an agenda to stop the cyclist getting past,clearly evident when he placed his car's offside wheels on the white centre line.The cyclist was claiming his part of the road after manouvring past the aggressive driver's Audi,you may also notice that the car in front of the cyclist after he passed the aggressive driver's Audi began to indicate left and consequently the cyclist was moving out to positition himself to overtake it when the aggressive Audi driver accelerated to close the gap in an attempt to block the cyclist.
All the cyclist wanted to do was overtake the line of slow moving stop start traffic which was moving at a slower pace than his,there's nothing wrong or dangerous with that manouvre it's perfectly safe and legal,two wheelers,cyclists and motorcyclists do it all the time providing the opposing lane is clear.

As I posted earlier STOP blaming the victim!

[Jdsk]

I think there is a strong temptation in cases like this to ascribe motivations and intent to the cyclist and driver based more on our own experiences and beliefs than the available evidence supports.

I think you might be right.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

I see this has now made it into the Daily Mail - actually a week ago on 6 Oct.

Shocking moment a cyclist is 'pushed and punched' by a furious road-rage driver - but was handed an official warning for SWEARING at his attacker

Now, Mr Brennan - along with charity Cycling UK - is trying to change the way cyclists are treated by Scottish police.

Jim Densham, Cycling UK's policy and campaigns manager in Scotland, said: 'Too often we hear of people who are out enjoying a cycle ride but experience a dangerous situation through no fault of their own.

'Dangerous incidents reported to the police on the road must be dealt with fairly and they must recognise that people who cycle are vulnerable road users.

'We believe that helmetcam and dashcam technology can help the police do their job and that's why we are calling for Police Scotland to introduce a straightforward system which enables anyone to submit this footage.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... river.html

[robing]

This could backfire once the media discovers who the victim actually is and his YouTube channel.
As we've seen, opinion is pretty divided on here and it's a cycling forum.

[Tangled Metal]

This could backfire once the media discovers who the victim actually is and his YouTube channel.
As we've seen, opinion is pretty divided on here and it's a cycling forum.

I've missed quite a few pages, sorry, can you clarify who he is and relevance of his you tube channel causing it to backfire on the media?

I'm afraid these threads take so much time to keep up with which I don't have spare. So I dip in and out but miss things like this. It's interesting but I can't be everywhere so I'd appreciate if anyone would clarify who he is and what that means.

[Paulatic]

I’ve followed this thread with interest as I have met the cyclist a couple of times and followed him on Twitter for a number of years. The comments appearing on these last 8 pages reflect quite closely to comments I’ve read for the last five years.
I believe CUK have linked with him because regardless of his controversial cycling and attitude on the road he is a dedicated campaigner for safer infrastructure and more consideration from Police Scotland. A thorn in their side for many councillors and MSPs but has the necessary dogmatic determination trying to improve matters for us all.

[Jdsk]

I've missed quite a few pages, sorry, can you clarify who he is and relevance of his you tube channel causing it to backfire on the media?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcmcvFu9RFtqb05WNqwSc5A
https://twitter.com/magnatom?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
http://www.magnatom.net

Jonathan

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
The moment the car driver got out of the car was the moment he started to be confrontational and aggressive abusive.
Before that it's just incredibly poor judgement on his part the way he positions his car especially in respect to the cyclist.
Like I said don't get out of the car.
Irrespective of what the cyclist did the car driver is fully to blame.
Why? Because he abused and assaulted the cyclist.
Irrespective of what the cyclist does this is no grounds for assault.
If the driver felt fear or that his property was being damaged, he could've videoed the cyclist and got the registration numbers of the adjacent cars.
The car driver was in a safe place, The cyclist is a vulnerable road user.
we all know who is going to come off worst and who is going to get hurt.
If the cyclist is a activist and his agenda is to go out looking for problems and confrontations, then the police should look at this separately.
The police are wrong on so many levels in respect to the fact they wanted to charge the cyclist for bad language.
I am struggling to find any way in which bad language would affect the car?
The driver getting out of the vehicle showed that he was not in fear of his life or any hurt
I I RC Without re-viewing the video I think the driver swore first?
Maybe the Police should view the evidence well before they start jumping to conclusions.
I don't know that what will annoy most people is that the police did a U-turn.
Did the cyclist do anything wrong?
Well he could I think modify his cycling a bit and he will face no more danger for sure, that if he carries on like that.
I am fully with R2 and his methods and opinions.
A cyclist is left with no more than the ability to warn car drivers they are there, and at worst a slap on the car, which I have done several times.
short of that all you can do otherwise is stop and get off your bike.
It's obvious that some people on here don't ride the bike much and the main mode is driving a car.

There is only one lane going that way, You only indicate in a lane if you are going going to move to another lane.
A cyclist is fully legal in overtaking on the right.
Because the traffic is slow moving, the rider has to assume it's safe enough to overtake though.
The word in the highway code now appears to be and other advice "filtering "?
Driving standards are so poor nowadays that people don't even use mirrors any of them that they don't use left right or even the centre mirror when they're driving, just look at how many indicate on roundabouts?
So it's in my opinion a bit hazardous to go up the inside left-hand side of another vehicle.
For that reason I don't do it at all.
It's one lane so when a vehicle gets their nose in front of your vehicle you have to let them in you cannot force them out.
and yes it's very frustrating if someone does this.
In slow moving traffic in my opinion it's more safe to take primary position than to creep and scoot along the left hand side next to the curb.
Your opinion might differ.
if the cyclist had been hurt do you think the police would be using evidence of swearing against the cyclist?
I can't see that holding up in court much.
They are talking about all police officers having a degree.
let's hope that's a versatile subject and not one of Geography history or arts and craft.
if little old me has to grovel a bit for my own safety I will do it.
Otherwise you'll spend half your working day trying to reason with nonchalant road and path users.

[northerncyclist]

Having toured once in Scotland I am all for this cyclist pursuing police Scotland. I spent my time on the roads fearful of when the next speeding car was going to arrive. The 500 was beautiful but I would not ride it again due to the fast cars. Police Scotland could and should have a field day booking speeding cars but I did not see one mobile speeding unit. .... Good for this guy to try and redress the balance, I suggest all cyclist in Scotland support him.

[Vorpal]

He's a dedicated cycle campaigner, who has been on YouTube for *years* without earning any significant amounts of money. Earning money from Youtube is based on how many people view & subscribe. Social Blade suggests that he currently gets a few quid per month https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/magnatom
It's possible that the recent increase in viewers will mean that he earns more, but I think it is unreasonable to ascribe that as a motive.

[Jdsk]

If the cyclist is a activist and his agenda is to go out looking for problems and confrontations, then the police should look at this separately.
The police are wrong on so many levels in respect to the fact they wanted to charge the cyclist for bad language.
I am struggling to find any way in which bad language would affect the car?
The driver getting out of the vehicle showed that he was not in fear of his life or any hurt
I I RC Without re-viewing the video I think the driver swore first?
Maybe the Police should view the evidence well before they start jumping to conclusions.

I'm sure that they did. And from what we know their reaction wasn't noted for speed.

It may be wiser to try and assess "blame" and criminality separately for the two than to think of there being any "balance". This wasn't a civil action.

The point that I made earlier about activists is that they can be very valuable, but there are techniques that help the cause and those that hinder. As above the cyclist's behaviour allowed diversion from the issue of dangerous driving.

Jonathan

[Mature Rider]

Such a long thread wih such a range of opinion over what is (or should be) such a simple matter.

1) If the driver of is not guilty of assault then I am left wondering how that crime is defined in Scotland. Is it necessary to detonate a thermonuclear devce and kill a few million people before the police consider a prosecution for assault?

2) The message I get from this matter is that if I swear, Scottish Police will give me a warning. If I beat someone up, Scottish Police will give me a warning. I conclude that, if I am cycling in Scotland, I should keep my D lock handy and if I get upset with someone, I can whack them with it and expect a warning. If the person on the receiving end of my D lock swears when I shatter their kneecap then they too should receive a warning. Of course, if no one videos the incident then much valuable police time is saved as they will do nothing.

My own experience tells me the police as individuals are mostly excellent. It also tells me that, as organisations, they have become box tickers who have lost sight of what they are supposed to be doing. This direction has taken them on a path which undermines the excellent coppers. The irony of current UK policing is that they are crap at ticking boxes as well as the policing we pay them to do.

I am wiling to bet that, if anyting changes as a result of this incident and the surrounding publicity, it will be the box-ticking procedures and not the policing. Nevertheless, it is vital the police are told when they screw up. Improvement will not happen without that.

[thirdcrank]

This is posted against the background that Scotland has a different legal system to England and Wales. Cyclists would benefit from improvements in both jurisdictions.

I think it's a good idea to try to campaign on the back of official policies/ announcements etc., only opposing them when they are detrimental to our aims.

I've lifted the following quote of Jim Densham, Cycling UK's policy and campaigns manager in Scotland, as reported in my Daily Mail link above

Dangerous incidents reported to the police on the road must be dealt with fairly and they must recognise that people who cycle are vulnerable road users.

We believe that helmetcam and dashcam technology can help the police do their job and that's why we are calling for Police Scotland to introduce a straightforward system which enables anyone to submit this footage.

I presume this sums up the cUK campaign we are discussing and I hope we can all both agree with that and urge it should apply throughout the UK.

What I've regularly described as the collapse of traffic policing disproportionately affects vulnerable road users.

We recently had a thread about a report by HMICFRS - the police inspectorate for England and Wales - saying just that.

viewtopic.php?p=1508569#p1508569

Unfortunately, on the basis of casualty counting it equated vulnerable road users with motorcyclists and new drivers. An opportunity here for cUK to campaign on the back of this for stronger traffic policing while forcefully making the point that the inspectorate is using a bizarre definition of vulnerable road users.

Did cyclingUK take up either of these points?

The inspectorate made recommendations to increase the use of dashcam footage submitted to the police under Operation Snap. Hopefully, that should include footage from cyclists, but that should be explicitly stated. It seems self-evident to me that the more drivers are using dashcams and submitting their vids, the more road users will drive more carefully for fear of detection and prosecution.

Did cyclingUK take up either of these points?

Drivers overtaking riders too closely is one of cyclists' big issues. Megabucks were raised to provide all police forces with copies of the WMP mats. To put it mildly, they seem to have had little use. The Inspectorate's report mentioned Operation Close Pass as a good thing, but did not objectively evaluate it. Bearing in mind the emphasis normally placed by the Inspectorate on proper evalution, this is a regrettable omission. This would have been an ideal opportunity for cyclingUK to seek an update.

Did cyclingUK query the evaluation of Operation Close Pass?

And if not, why not? I ask because if these things had been tackled, we might not have been discussing this episode.

[Jdsk]

The message I get from this matter is that if I swear, Scottish Police will give me a warning.

I have no idea how much of what happened at or after the original incident we have been told. Therefore I wouldn't draw that conclusion.

Jonathan

[iandusud]

I'm a bit late coming in on this thread but would like to contribute. I've been watching the excellent and disturbing Small Axe series on the BBC. This series highlights some awful racial discriminatory behaviour by the Police at the time. This I believe occurs when some people see others as "different" and for some bizarre reason feel either threatened by them or simply use them as a target for bullying. We live in a society where the norm for personal transport is the car and therefore cyclists fall into the category of being "different". This is less so in big cities where car drivers, whether they like it or not, see lots of cyclists everyday. However in less densely populated areas such as Scotland, where distances travelled are often greater the prevalence of bicycles is less, reinforcing this "difference". I have put the word different and difference in inverted commas because of course cyclists are no different to anyone else, just as black people are no different to anyone else. However what I think this case clearly demonstrates is overt discrimination by the Police in Scotland (in this case) against a minority group and it needs to be seen as such, and addressed as such. Truly shameful.