Angry driver let off after attacking cyclist

T

twist

Suspended / Banned
Messages
17,878
Edit My Images
No
Pretty shocked when I saw this.... let off with a caution.

An English cyclist's helmet camera has shown the moment he was knocked to the ground and violently attacked by an angry driver in broad daylight.

Mr Perrin narrowly manages to avoid the 36-year-old driver the first time and continues on cycling.

But just seconds later the driver is seen running from his vehicle and dragging Mr Perrin off his bike.

The man knocks Mr Perrin to the ground and punches him repeatedly.
The hot-headed driver was recorded saying: "You f----ing pr—k. I'll f---ing knock you out, do you f---ing want to go?"

But police have only issued the driver with a caution despite being given the footage of the vicious attack, the Sun reports.

"Because he had no police record and admitted to the offence, under the ridiculous scoring system imposed on the police he was eligible for a caution," Mr Perrin told the newspaper.

http://youtu.be/89hWN6tmYgc
 
Last edited:
Disgusting, he should be punished for such an attack. Makes you wonder why we even bother having police or a legal system if acts like this go unpunished. Just like the woman who killed one of my friends a few years ago in a rta, she was drunk and had been caught speeding by a camera a hundred meters up the road, mowing down a pedestrian was the icing on the cake and all she got was an £80 fine.

I don't know why people bother to remain law abiding.
 
twist said:
"Because he had no police record and admitted to the offence, under the ridiculous scoring system imposed on the police he was eligible for a caution," Mr Perrin told the newspaper.[/I]
Click to expand...
But he didn't. He denied it and gave a continuously changing false account of the incident until he was made aware that there was video footage that disproved his version. Only then did he admit to it, by which time it was a moot point.

"He was brought in for interview and initially claimed provocation, that I kicked his van and kicked him in the chest. He changed his story when told there was video evidence. He still claimed I kicked him and the van and only after the officer pointed out that she couldn't see any of that, on his solicitor's advice he finally accepted full responsibility."
 
Just quoted the article, shouldve said "and eventually admitted to the offence after a string of lies"

...yet still got off with a caution.
 
Do him for wasting police time or attempting to pervert course of justice for lying repeatedly.
 
I agree this is outrageous but it seems every cyclist who gets a helmet cam is suddenly an expert on safe driving. They seem to think a helmet means defensive riding isn't needed. Many of the incidents captured on helmet cams that I've seen could easily be avoided if the cyclist just rode a little more defensively. One of the reasons my car carries a dash cam is because of the lycra brigade doing their level best to put their bike under my wheels!

There's even been talk recently of assuming the motorist responsible for any accident involving a cyclist and a car. Utterly ridiculous. Cyclists and motorists are sharing a road, but both have to be reasonable, but cyclists don't help themselves by camming up and become a one man driving school.

That said, I repeat that in no way is the driver's response appropriate.
 
I do think that if people wish to ride a bicycle on the road, as they're meant to, they should do some sort of basic road safety course, similar to a cbt for motorbikes.
 
rssmrry said:
There's even been talk recently of assuming the motorist responsible for any accident involving a cyclist and a car. Utterly ridiculous. Cyclists and motorists are sharing a road, but both have to be reasonable, but cyclists don't help themselves by camming up and become a one man driving school.
Click to expand...

This.

The cyclist's aggressive behaviour prior to the driver stopping was uncalled for looking at the footage and, whilst I don't condone the driver's actions afterwards for one second, you have to wonder whether he would have even batted an eyelid had the cyclist not leant on his horn.
 
I'd hardly call it aggressive behaviour from the cyclist, the van driver did come very close to him when cutting back into the correct lane.



That is extremely close, less than 1 foot away I'd say, and I certainly wouldn't be overly impressed if someone did that to me.
 
twist said:
Pretty shocked when I saw this.... let off with a caution.

[/url]
Click to expand...

But he wasn't let off with a caution, he was dealt with under a community resolution which would have involved the cyclist agreeing to this process.
 
Spuff said:
But he wasn't let off with a caution, he was dealt with under a community resolution which would have involved the cyclist agreeing to this process.
Click to expand...

http://road.cc/content/news/81677-n...n-driver-who-assaulted-cyclist-video-incident

"As the victim I was given the choice of the driver receiving a caution or I could accept a local resolution, the terms of which that I would receive an amount in compensation and a written apology. I'm far from happy about it but reluctantly accepted the resolution."
 
faddius said:
I'd hardly call it aggressive behaviour from the cyclist, the van driver did come very close to him when cutting back into the correct lane.
Click to expand...

The driver was close, yes, but not close enough to warrant horns and hand gestures IMO.

neil_g said:
lulwut?
Click to expand...

Sorry, in English?
 
Simmotino said:
The driver was close, yes, but not close enough to warrant horns and hand gestures IMO.
Click to expand...

the driver of the van was using his vehicle in an aggressive manor toward the cyclist. it seems that drivers think that cyclists cannot voice their opinion when abused on the road unlike people caged in a tonne or two of moving metal..

Sorry, in English?
Click to expand...

sorry, "ha, what are you jabbering on about?"
 
Spuff said:
But he wasn't let off with a caution, he was dealt with under a community resolution which would have involved the cyclist agreeing to this process.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying, thats what was written in the article, so I assumed it was true (thatll teach me for reading the 'news' and thinking its fact). I never wrote the thing just quoted it.
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
the driver of the van was using his vehicle in an aggressive manor toward the cyclist. it seems that drivers think that cyclists cannot voice their opinion when abused on the road unlike people caged in a tonne or two of moving metal..
Click to expand...

Looking at the footage (as I have, many times) the road is fairly narrow at the passing point and it could be argued the driver offered as much room as was possible for the circumstances.

Yes, he could have followed the cyclist past the parked cars until the road widened again, but I don't see the pass as 'aggressive'. The cyclist's reaction however...

neil_g said:
sorry, "ha, what are you jabbering on about?"
Click to expand...

Oh, I see.

Nothing. Just offering an alternate view (and from the position of a road cyclist for over 30 years).

Sorry if that constitutes 'jabbering' :shrug:
 
neil_g said:
http://road.cc/content/news/81677-n...n-driver-who-assaulted-cyclist-video-incident

"As the victim I was given the choice of the driver receiving a caution or I could accept a local resolution, the terms of which that I would receive an amount in compensation and a written apology. I'm far from happy about it but reluctantly accepted the resolution."
Click to expand...

Maybe the cyclist should have let van man get a caution (and hence criminal record) and then taken civil proceedings.
 
Simmotino said:
Looking at the footage (as I have, many times) the road is fairly narrow at the passing point and it could be argued the driver offered as much room as was possible for the circumstances.

Yes, he could have followed the cyclist past the parked cars until the road widened again, but I don't see the pass as 'aggressive'. The cyclist's reaction however...
Click to expand...

highway code says "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" so the van should have held back if anything.

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169

but either way it doesnt justify the van driver giving the cyclist a kicking..

Oh, I see.

Nothing. Just offering an alternate view (and from the position of a road cyclist for over 30 years).

Sorry if that constitutes 'jabbering' :shrug:
Click to expand...

was only lighthearted :)
 
neil_g said:
highway code says "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" so the van should have held back if anything.

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169

but either way it doesnt justify the van driver giving the cyclist a kicking..
Click to expand...

I'm conversant with the Highway Code, but thanks all the same ;)

My point was the driver wasn't the only aggressor and, had the cyclist not exacerbated the situation with the use of his horn and hand gestures, he almost certainly wouldn't have received a beating (which I also made clear I wasn't condoning for one second).

It's a similar scenario to the oft moaned about treatment of photographers by police/security. More often than not it is the aggressive behaviour of the 'victim' that perpetuates the situation where an alternative approach would have allowed all to carry on with their day and no-one be any the wiser (or worse off).

As it is (and returning to the point raised which started this particular strain of discussion), when cyclists start donning helmet cameras etc. to record their commutes, it often changes their demeanour and behaviour toward other road users, and often for the worse sadly.
 
faddius said:
I'd hardly call it aggressive behaviour from the cyclist, the van driver did come very close to him when cutting back into the correct lane.



That is extremely close, less than 1 foot away I'd say, and I certainly wouldn't be overly impressed if someone did that to me.
Click to expand...

Funny, that is exactly what I saw.

Cars parked to the left, car on the right, driver barely over the central line.
Hardly the 6 feet that the highway code requires or a glowing example of safe driving and road planning, particularly when further up the road was obviously clearer and safer and would in no way impede their precious time.

There really is no excuse for the drivers initial and following actions.
The driver made a CHOICE to drive aggressively, they made a CHOICE to attack the cyclist then made a CHOICE to continue to follow and make another attack, followed by choosing to lie to the police.
 
Simmotino said:
I'm conversant with the Highway Code, but thanks all the same ;)

My point was the driver wasn't the only aggressor and, had the cyclist not exacerbated the situation with the use of his horn and hand gestures, he almost certainly wouldn't have received a beating (which I also made clear I wasn't condoning for one second).

It's a similar scenario to the oft moaned about treatment of photographers by police/security. More often than not it is the aggressive behaviour of the 'victim' that perpetuates the situation where an alternative approach would have allowed all to carry on with their day and no-one be any the wiser (or worse off).

As it is (and returning to the point raised which started this particular strain of discussion), when cyclists start donning helmet cameras etc. to record their commutes, it often changes their demeanour and behaviour toward other road users, and often for the worse sadly.
Click to expand...

jeez, if i could expect to get beaten up every time ive just the horn or "waved" at someone while driving a car id be a very bruised person.. only this morning i used the same gesture the cyclist used because i nearly got run over (as a pedestrian) by a car not indicating into a junction. funnily enough i didnt get abused, just a "sorry" wave back. this van driver clearly has anger management issues.

but like you say goes both ways, some people get in a car and think theyre the law on the road. and some cyclists are morons, but from what ive seen this cyclist doesnt appear to be one.
 
neil_g said:
...but from what ive seen this cyclist doesnt appear to be one.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say he was a moron either, but he's certainly not a model cyclist.

His comments concerning the Focus parking, his choices for progress through the traffic, the horn and camera, and his attitude toward other drivers (in this case, white van man) would suggest to me he is on the aggressive side of the curve.

That's a wise stance when relating to riding style in regards to road positioning and signalling (for direction, not number of fingers!) but not so wise in relation to attitude toward other road users.

I repeat, I don't condone the driver's actions at all, but the cyclist is not a totally innocent victim in this scenario in my opinion.
 
When I regularly went out on my bike I would try to plan ahead and if I saw parked cars on my side of the road that would cause issues if someone wanted to pass I would try to time my approach to the hazard such that following traffic could pass before the obstacle, keeping everyone happy. If you look far enough ahead, there's no need to lose too much speed to facilitate this. I never had any huge issue with motorists, there was the odd one or two that would move in a bit earlier than I would have liked but I found that if you made an effort to let them pass they were more than happy to give you a bit of respect when passing.
 
Maybe the cyclist should have let van man get a caution (and hence criminal record) and then taken civil proceedings.
Click to expand...

You don't get a 'criminal record' with a caution.
Depending on what its for, it's recorded, but not permanently.

There's nothing stopping the cyclist from suing as it is now.

What would the cyclist have gained from a caution? nothing. What would the cyclist have gained from the driver being prosecuted? Nothing, possibly some compensation, but probably not. Thats assuming the driver pleaded guilty or was convicted, not a racing certainty.

What has he gained from the disposal of the job in the way it has been? An apology, may have been meant, may not, and some compensation. So as far as I can see, the cyclist has got the most he was ever going to get.
 
What I saw in that video was a cyclist who was first irritated by a driver daring to reverse park into a spot (*tut!* wha' yer dooooin'! shhheeesh!), and then seconds later irritated again when a driver cut back into the correct lane.

He wasn't anywhere near him, and there were a few moments when he looked to the right, way before the car had passed, at which point you see the car draw level with the driver seemingly leaning out of his seat looking at the cyclist. There was obviously an exchange that wasn't caught on camera. We finally see the cyclist gesture in disbelief with his hand, while sounding his little bike horn, because, again, someone has dared to perform a completely valid manoeuvre in his presence.

Cyclists are mostly pr*cks, and this guy seems no different. Complete overreaction from the driver, but you invite this kind of thing when you behave the way this cyclist did. He was arrogant, acting like he owned the road, and christ, he even had a bloody horn on his bike. If you're going to act aggressively in life, you have to accept that at some point, it might make someone want to punch you in the face.
 
As a car driver I loath cyclist's

As a motorcyclist I loath cyclist's and car drivers

I would never ride a bicycle as it's to dangerous with all the pedestrians on the path.

I change my attitude to other road users depending on my mode of transport.:lol:
 
All I can say about the van driver is, small man syndrome and nice bowl. If he'd come after me I'd have been in fits of laughter. :)
 
crofter said:
Cyclists don't fart then ? The tax is for wear and tear
Click to expand...

caused by what? ~100kg on tarmac :shrug:

i guess we should tax pedestrians for wearing out pavements too right?

:bonk:

but either way, "road tax" doesnt cover wear to roads for motor vehicles.. i can go out and buy a "band a" car that doesnt qualify for paying any tax a year.
 
neil_g said:
caused by what? ~100kg on tarmac :shrug:

i guess we should tax pedestrians for wearing out pavements too right?

:bonk:

but either way, "road tax" doesnt cover wear to roads for motor vehicles.. i can go out and buy a "band a" car that doesnt qualify for paying any tax a year.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
crofter said:
Cyclists don't fart then ? The tax is for wear and tear
Click to expand...

Tell that to the electric & low C02 cars that don't pay any road tax they would put considerably more wear on the road then us cyclists & even if we made a contribution you lot would still act like dicks all the time, I may start using my helmit cam for road use as I would have hundreds of hours of footage of **** drivers overtaking me on blind corners, narrow roads etc....
 
maybe the cyclist should pay a congestion charge,they create enough of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top