Driver deliberately hits cyclist with her car (Video)

Moflojo

Shocking video of this incident in which a cyclist was deliberately struck with a vehicle, apparently in revenge for his telling the driver off for using her phone while driving. Cyclist ended up in intensive car with a lacerated liver and rib fractures. He also has a permanent hand injury as a result of the collision.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/shocking-moment-woman-uses-car-like-a-weapon-against-cyclist-in-stoke-newington-road-rage-revenge-a3535346.html

Blowfish

Second one in a few days in the UK: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/van-driver-cyclist-bike-video-helmet-cam-vidette-uk-ltd-a7721216.html

Shannon757

I'm annoyed that the van that drive past after just ignored the injured cyclist.

BorneTobyWilde

Attempted murder? Will she now do 12-20 years in jail ?

mr spuckler

Shannon757 wrote: »

I'm annoyed that the van that drive past after just ignored the injured cyclist.

yeah, when i saw it reversing before turning i assumed it was to come to the assistance of the cyclist.

jimmycrackcorm

Shannon757 wrote:

I'm annoyed that the van that drive past after just ignored the injured cyclist.

Looked to me that the speed he did was to catch up and identify the car.

vrt12

Blowfish wrote: »

Second one in a few days in the UK: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/van-driver-cyclist-bike-video-helmet-cam-vidette-uk-ltd-a7721216.html

Clearly an element of provocation in that one.

Cienciano

There was a similar type incident recently where a car swerved to hit a motorcycle in USA. He ended up getting 15 years.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article141962014.html

Hopefully they find this woman

Beasty

20 off-topic posts deleted

EDIT - make that 22

OK 24

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

MOD VOICE: responding to off topic post

Kaisr Sose

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Attempted murder? Will she now do 12-20 years in jail ?

Awful!!

That's not what she was charged with - dangerous driving causing serious injury (see the article). 5yr Max sentence and mandatory 2yr driving ban.

The attempt to blame the (thankfully for him) ex-boyfriend for grabbing the wheel and steering the car towards the cyclist is appaling. It brings a whole new meaning to the dog ate my homework... I am not sure we are dealing with psychopath or sociopath!

If she was so concerned or had remorse ...etc etc

Cienciano

Weepsie wrote: »

They did. She's currently being tried. She claimed her boyfriend took the wheel and did it. Due to be sentenced

Good. Might sound harsh, but anyone capable of outbursts of rage like that against defenceless people should be banned from driving for life.
American charge was "aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon causing bodily injury", hopefully this is something similar

EDIT: Just read the article, my crappy browser was blocking it all.

DanDublin1982

Jesus Christ that footage is horriffic.

Kaisr Sose

Shannon757 wrote: »

I'm annoyed that the van that drive past after just ignored the injured cyclist.

Nobody knows what happened the van driver. They may have went after the vehicle and recorded it on dashcam. People react in different ways. Stay with victim or chase after suspected assailant...

ED E

If you point a gun at somebody and discharge it, gonna be 10yrs minimum. A 1-2 Tonne car is equally dangerous.

Take the kid, lock her up for a decade and lifetime ban on driving.

T-Maxx

She's 3 months pregnant - she'll get a suspended sentence.

Duckjob

Weepsie wrote: »

They did. She's currently being tried. She claimed her boyfriend took the wheel and did it. Due to be sentenced

Impressive how at the same time as hauling the steering over this boyfriend also managed to get to the accelerator pedal to speed up into the cyclist :pac:

Until the culture from the top changes so that incidents like this result in a lifetime driving ban and attempted murder charges, this sort of rubbish will continue.

gctest50

Enraged, he kicked the pregnant woman's car at the next set of traffic lights

Enraged at her response he then kicked her wing mirror at the next set of lights after which she chased him in the Ford Fiesta.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/09/pregnant-hit-and-run-driver-ploughed-cyclist-road-rage-row/

check_six

ED E wrote: »

If you point a gun at somebody and discharge it, gonna be 10yrs minimum. A 1-2 Tonne car is equally dangerous.

Take the kid, lock her up for a decade and lifetime ban on driving.

If you are ramming someone with a car, you've got to assume that you're going to kill them, or at least you are trying very hard to kill them. I can't understand how the max sentence for this is only 5 years? Why is it that using a car to try your best to kill someone is less of an offence than using any other weapon. Is there a sliding scale of what weapons get the lesser sentences? Even if the victim ends up just as injured/dead?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Luis Zealous Thief wrote: »

MOD VOICE: responding to off topic post

You are too fast Beasty, your edits and my posts were simultaneous.

Duckjob wrote: »

Impressive how at the same time as hauling the steering over this boyfriend also managed to get to the accelerator pedal to speed up into the cyclist :pac:

Until the culture from the top changes so that incidents like this result in a lifetime driving ban and attempted murder charges, this sort of rubbish will continue.

From the article, the max sentence is 5 years, which I find to be a little lenient in this case to be honest. I really hope her pregnancy/age/sex/good looks don't have any impact on sentencing.

gctest50

It probably seemed at the time he was trying to lead her down a side road

He saw the car at a red light further up the road, and in a "moment of madness" kicked the wing mirror, then rode off.

I took a sharp left. I was going 20, maybe slightly more.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/09/pregnant-hit-and-run-driver-ploughed-cyclist-road-rage-row/

.

robyntmorton

gctest50 wrote: »

Enraged, he kicked the pregnant woman's car at the next set of traffic lights

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/09/pregnant-hit-and-run-driver-ploughed-cyclist-road-rage-row/

You appear to be looking for justification for her actions, but the act of using the car as a deadly weapon is inexcusable, no matter what went on before.

Holy f*ck, the footage in the OP :eek:

I was expecting to see something like a nudge, not a cyclist getting mowed down.

I hope they find this potential killer and make an example of him/her. I know that cyclists and drivers having their differences isn't a new thing, but you can't be having that.

jon1981

At some stage in this event she must have convinced herself she had entered a video game such as grand theft auto where there are no consequences in the real world ... how do people lose control like this? Amazing and worrying!

CramCycle

I remember getting punched when I was about 10years old. I hate the guy who done it, he was 13. To this day I hate him. His life has went down the toilet, and regrettably, there is a part of me that does not care, although I now rephrase my hate as condescending pity. I almost feel sorry for him after thinking about it as life brought him up that way and then that same life led him down a road that has left him where he is. Then I look at his other family members who are well adjusted and really nice, decent people, and then I think, stupid bloody excuses.

My hatred for him at one point was so intense that very dark thoughts crossed my mind.

To put it in context of this thread, her running him over for the wing mirror, is the equivalent of me putting a gun to that guys back and pulling the trigger. I may have felt like it but in no world is that reaction justified. That's what separates (some of) us from the animals.

cnocbui

The cyclist swore at her, then he kicked her mirror. He isn't blameless. The driver clearly should not have rammed him and should be punished.

CramCycle

cnocbui wrote: »

The cyclist swore at her, then he kicked her mirror. He isn't blameless. The driver clearly should not have rammed him and should be punished.

Imagine you gave out to me for something socially unacceptable, lets say screaming profanities at kids as I cycled by you. I then stop and tell you to F Off. In retaliation you kick my tyre. As recourse I put you in intensive care and potentially end your life if no one sees you as I cycle off.

That's where we are here, you are saying that you are not blameless, I would say that you are as there is no normal level of escalation where you deserve to die over a minor bit of property damage.

jon1981

I will be watching this with interest, it's bound to make the headlines.

daheff

Blowfish wrote: »

Second one in a few days in the UK: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/van-driver-cyclist-bike-video-helmet-cam-vidette-uk-ltd-a7721216.html

From what I saw, the cyclist was deliberately cycling in the middle of the lane to annoy the van driver...clearly trying to provoke the van driver. Van driver has no excuses though for what he did. Both should be taken off the road after this.

Weepsie wrote: »

Yeah by the van driver. Cyclist hitting the van to let it know it's too close is not provocation and I can only assume you're trolling if you think so.

I can only assume you are a card holder of the militant cyclists club if you believe the cyclist was behaving in a proper manner and that this incident was all the van drivers fault.

The Bishop Basher

Prior to the incident they were both being dicks imo.

I've no idea how i'd react if someone kicked my car but i have had someone come at me through the window in a car park and my gut reaction was to take the offensive rather then wait for the fist..

This reaction caught both of us by surprise and on seeing me come at him he immediately backed down..

I'm not an aggressive person. Quite the opposite. Even as a young lad I was never involved in fights and never wanted to be.. But you never ever know how the other person will respond if you come at them with aggression so it's always best to just walk away..

That said, there can never ever be an excuse for this level of violence and she deserves a lengthy custodial sentence.

robyntmorton

daheff wrote: »

From what I saw, the cyclist was deliberately cycling in the middle of the lane to annoy the van driver...clearly trying to provoke the van driver. Van driver has no excuses though for what he did. Both should be taken off the road after this.

I can only assume you are a card holder of the militant cyclists club if you believe the cyclist was behaving in a proper manner and that this incident was all the van drivers fault.

As opposed to cycling in the middle of the lane in order to discourage an overtake when it was not safe to do so?

It was all the van driver's fault, and to think otherwise is deluded.

jon1981

daheff wrote: »

From what I saw, the cyclist was deliberately cycling in the middle of the lane to annoy the van driver...clearly trying to provoke the van driver. Van driver has no excuses though for what he did. Both should be taken off the road after this.

I can only assume you are a card holder of the militant cyclists club if you believe the cyclist was behaving in a proper manner and that this incident was all the van drivers fault.

Hmmmm ... your viewpoint is disturbing. Everyday drivers, cyclists annoy me but i guess it's their fault if I make an attempt on their life.

Of course the cyclist being rammed off the road by an action close to attempted murder is ALL the van drivers fault!

kerplun k

I really can’t believe some of the responses in this thread. In both cases a driver attempts to severally injure/kill someone, and people are debating how much a d**k the victim was. It’s unreal. It really highlights people’s attitude towards cyclists.

vrt12

robyntmorton wrote: »

As opposed to cycling in the middle of the lane in order to discourage an overtake when it was not safe to do so?

We can all see the video. There is clearly lots of room to overtake without even crossing the white line.

It is these self appointed enforcers of the rules of the road that give cyclists a bad name.

Free wheeling in the middle of the road, clearly deliberately trying to provoke a reaction against the driver of a 3 ton white van and then posting his stupidity on the internet. Smart bloke. Even if he were in the right, it's not going to be much help to him when he's being rolled over by a 3 ton van. Clear stupidity. Pull over, give the van room, let him pass and get on with your cycle without a 2nd thought. It's not that difficult.

robyntmorton

vrt12 wrote: »

We can all see the video. There is clearly lots of room to overtake without even crossing the white line.

It is these self appointed enforcers of the rules of the road that give cyclists a bad name.

Free wheeling in the middle of the road, clearly deliberately trying to provoke a reaction against the driver of a 3 ton white van and then posting his stupidity on the internet. Smart bloke. Even if he were in the right, it's not going to be much help to him when he's being rolled over by a 3 ton van. Clear stupidity. Pull over, give the van room, let him pass and get on with your cycle without a 2nd thought. It's not that difficult.

Okay, I'll bite. The video starts on a double solid white line. In all my time driving that says to me "don't even think about overtaking".

The cyclist has every right to take the lane if they feel it is safer, and did so. The freewheeling or not is irrelevant.

When the road opened up the cyclist moved over, and then the van driver made his move.

We have no idea what the cyclist's motive was. We have no idea what the relationship between the cyclist and the person recording the video is. For all we know they are completely unrelated, and it was not done deliberately to "post his stupidity on the internet".

I'll agree with the clear stupidity comment though, but not on the part of the cyclist. When you're in charge of "a 3 ton white van" you have a responsibility to not act like a d*ck. The driver totally failed in that responsibility, deserved to be fired for it, and would absolutely deserve any criminal conviction that comes his way.

CramCycle

robyntmorton wrote: »

As opposed to cycling in the middle of the lane in order to discourage an overtake when it was not safe to do so?

vrt12 wrote: »

We can all see the video. There is clearly lots of room to overtake without even crossing the white line.

It is these self appointed enforcers of the rules of the road that give cyclists a bad name.

Free wheeling in the middle of the road, clearly deliberately trying to provoke a reaction against the driver of a 3 ton white van and then posting his stupidity on the internet. Smart bloke. Even if he were in the right, it's not going to be much help to him when he's being rolled over by a 3 ton van. Clear stupidity. Pull over, give the van room, let him pass and get on with your cycle without a 2nd thought. It's not that difficult.

It is a solid white line, there are three oncoming vehicles before the cyclists starts to move over (after they have passed).

It is funny what people miss when they have decided who is to blame. The cyclists may have looked provocative but it is clear if he pulled in, the van would have unsafely went for an overtake (oncoming traffic, solid white line etc.)

cnocbui

kerplun k wrote: »

I really can?t believe some of the responses in this thread. In both cases a driver attempts to severally injure/kill someone, and people are debating how much a d**k the victim was. It?s unreal. It really highlights people?s attitude towards cyclists.

I can easily believe some of the responses in this thread, and they go a good way towards explaining what underlies some people's less than impressed view of some types of cyclists.

Tombo2001

vrt12 wrote: »

We can all see the video. There is clearly lots of room to overtake without even crossing the white line.

It is these self appointed enforcers of the rules of the road that give cyclists a bad name.

Free wheeling in the middle of the road, clearly deliberately trying to provoke a reaction against the driver of a 3 ton white van and then posting his stupidity on the internet. Smart bloke. Even if he were in the right, it's not going to be much help to him when he's being rolled over by a 3 ton van. Clear stupidity. Pull over, give the van room, let him pass and get on with your cycle without a 2nd thought. It's not that difficult.

Janey Mack.

A continuous white line means Do Not Overtake. Full stop. It doesn't mean, do not overtake unless you can squeeze through inside the white line.

This is just unbelievable whataboutery.

I'm convinced that a lot of people who drive just full stop hate cyclists, have no interest in the notion that cyclists have rights on the road.

Tombo2001

cnocbui wrote: »

The cyclist swore at her, then he kicked her mirror. He isn't blameless. The driver clearly should not have rammed him and should be punished.

Classic victim blaming....

I'm not excusing it BUT.....

vrt12

CramCycle wrote: »

It is a solid white line, there are three oncoming vehicles before the cyclists starts to move over (after they have passed).

It is funny what people miss when they have decided who is to blame. The cyclists may have looked provocative but it is clear if he pulled in, the van would have unsafely went for an overtake (oncoming traffic, solid white line etc.)

It is not the cyclists responsibility to enforce the rules of the road. As a cyclist I will take care of my own safety first and foremost and the safety of others. Being in the right or wrong doesn't come into it. There is no argument here, we can all see the video we can all see the cyclist could have moved over and let the van past and this would be an everyday occurrence for most cyclist. It's not a matter of being entitled to the road just as much as cars, or being on the right side of the rules of the road. It's just common sense and a matter of safety. In fact a matter of life and death and that is no exaggeration.

vrt12

Tombo2001 wrote: »

A continuous white line means Do Not Overtake. Full stop. It doesn't mean, do not overtake unless you can squeeze through inside the white line.

You are wrong. It means do not cross the line.

vrt12

Weepsie wrote: »

You're trolling, nothing else.

Classic. you know you've won an argument when someone pulls the troll card.

magicbastarder

vrt12 wrote: »

We can all see the video. There is clearly lots of room to overtake without even crossing the white line.

hmm. let's allow the cyclist 50cm between his shoulder and the side of the road, which is clearly not 'cycling in the middle of the road'.
then allow 50cm for the cyclist himself.
then allow 1.5m for a safe overtake.
then allow 2m for the width of the van.

that's a 4.5m wide lane?

vrt12

Weepsie wrote: »

The cyclist has a responsibility to make sure their own safety is maintained. That's all they were doing.

Wow. The cyclist was maintaining their own safety by cycling in the middle of the road and blocking a clearly very disgruntled van driver. come off it. Who is the troll here.

magicbastarder

vrt12 wrote: »

Wow. The cyclist was maintaining their own safety by cycling in the middle of the road

you're actually correct. gold star.

Tombo2001

vrt12 wrote: »

Wow. The cyclist was maintaining their own safety by cycling in the middle of the road and blocking a clearly very disgruntled van driver. come off it. Who is the troll here.

God bless the cyclist; they made the assumption that the van driver wouldn't try to deliberately maim them.

The cyclist behaved exactly the way I would in a taxi lane where there is very little room - that is to say; If I keep to the left, this good behind me might try to overtake, when there CLEARLY isn't enough room....as such, I will cycle in the middle so they wont be able to overtake me....

But your logic is right......

.....So next time I see an elderly person with a cane walking slowly down the middle of the street....holding me up......instead of pulling over to let me past....well yes like you say that's really a provocation isn't it. Same thing.

vrt12

Weepsie wrote: »

The cyclist had the lane. It wasn't safe for the van driver to pass while there was oncoming traffic. Double white lines in the UK signify a hazard. The cyclist was right to take the lane.

I've already stated it's not a question of right or wrong. I feel like I am trying to reason with children. There is a high probability that someone reading this is going to end up in an accident. See where this righteous attitude gets you when you're bouncing across a bonnet.

cnocbui

Weepsie wrote: »

No, she swore at him after he pointed out she on the phone, and rather calmly by all accounts. This was after her careless driving saw her nearly hit him in the first place.

There was an exchange of words and gestures. The complainant admits he should not have followed and that he kicked her wing mirror.

Since the prosecutor said that, and was not prepared to state that the cyclists words were placid and non inflammatory, as he claimed to a paper, I choose not to believe him. He didn't swear at her, but he did then go and kick her mirror? As they say actions speak louder than words.

She shouldn't have been on her phone, she shouldn't have sworn and rudely gestured at the cyclist and she certainly shouldn't have deliberately rammed him as she did.

He shouldn't have kicked her mirror, he admits that himself. My saying that does not mean I condone her actions.

Tombo2001

vrt12 wrote: »

I've already stated it's not a question of right or wrong. I feel like I am trying to reason with children. There is a high probability that someone reading this is going to end up in an accident. See where this righteous attitude gets you when you're bouncing across a bonnet.

You think it was safe to pull over to the left and let the van overtake.

Nobody else thinks so.

We all cycle - not just you. Based on our collective experience of whats safe and whats not - we believe the cyclist correctly took the view that it wasn't safe to encourage the Van to overtake him by keeping tight to the left - as that would be dangerous.......you are recommending that he deliberately put himself at risk. The rest of us feel the cyclist tried to de-risk the situation.

It takes a special type of arrogance to say 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong'.

CramCycle

MOD VOICE: At vrt12, as a new poster, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here but form now on, learn to be more civil. If you believe someone is trolling, you report it, you do not call it out in thread. As for the more regular forum posters, the same applies to you all, learn to be more civil or take a break from posting.

vrt12

Tombo2001 wrote: »

God bless the cyclist; they made the assumption that the van driver wouldn't try to deliberately maim them.

The cyclist behaved exactly the way I would in a taxi lane where there is very little room - that is to say; If I keep to the left, this good behind me might try to overtake, when there CLEARLY isn't enough room....as such, I will cycle in the middle so they wont be able to overtake me....

But your logic is right......

.....So next time I see an elderly person with a cane walking slowly down the middle of the street....holding me up......instead of pulling over to let me past....well yes like you say that's really a provocation isn't it. Same thing.

Says who? You? So you cycle in the middle with a 2 ton vehicle coming up behind for your own safety? you're mad. As in mad, ted.