Cyclist vs van driver roadrage Old Kent rd?

[semislickstick]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypDQXo0DY8&feature=context&context=G2487dbbFAAAAAAAAGAA


I hope it was no one on here but the moped(?) rider wants to report it/offer evidence and can't find the road safe link.

 

[AlexTheory]

The vehicle details for LM53 TXY are:​

Date of Liability 01 01 2013
Date of First Registration 07 01 2004
Year of Manufacture 2004
Cylinder Capacity (cc) 2295cc
CO2 Emissions 0g/Km
Fuel Type GAS BI-FUEL
Export Marker N
Vehicle Status Licence Not Due
Vehicle Colour WHITE
Vehicle Type Approval N1​

 

[gaz]

The vehicle details for LM53 TXY are:​

Date of Liability 01 01 2013​

Date of First Registration 07 01 2004​

Year of Manufacture 2004​

Cylinder Capacity (cc) 2295cc​

CO2 Emissions 0g/Km​

Fuel Type GAS BI-FUEL​

Export Marker N​

Vehicle Status Licence Not Due​

Vehicle Colour WHITE​

Vehicle Type Approval N1​

Which is of zero help, what we actually want to know is what the vehicle is. According to askmid it is a FORD TRANSIT 330SWB L/ROOF

 

[dawesome]

Assault, clear and simple.

 

[col]

What actually happened there?

 

[Tim Hall]

Reading the OP, he wants a link to Roadsafe.

Try this: [url]https://secure.met.police.uk/roadsafelondon/[/url]

 

[growingvegetables]

What actually happened there?

On the face of it, cyclist (without head cam) experiences an attempt to door him, and then an assault designed to take him to the floor.

And gets the **** out of the situation, thoroughly shaken, without reg no; even if he has the number, he's put it down to "my word against his".

Hmmm. I might be wrong - it could well be justifiable retaliation by the WVM, because the cyclist had previously attempted to door the van, and assault its driver?

 

[AlexTheory]

Which is of zero help, what we actually want to know is what the vehicle is. According to askmid it is a FORD TRANSIT 330SWB L/ROOF

I'm sorry for trying to provide the little help that I thought MIGHT confirm the reg number as at least insured.

fark you for your attitude.

 

[G-Zero]

On the face of it, cyclist (without head cam) experiences an attempt to door him, and then an assault designed to take him to the floor.

And gets the **** out of the situation, thoroughly shaken, without reg no; even if he has the number, he's put it down to "my word against his".

Hmmm. I might be wrong - it could well be justifiable retaliation by the WVM, because the cyclist had previously attempted to door the van, and assault its driver?

Justifiable retaliation

All I see on the vid is WVM cut across in front of the cyclists and slam the brakes on, by the time the cyclist has gone round him, WVM is already opening his door and taking a swipe at him, forcing cyclist to swerve in front of black cab. Only the hard braking by the cab driver prevented him hitting the cyclist.

IMHO no matter what pure supposition you apply to what may or may not have occurred prior to the incident we see, there can be no justification for the actions we see on the vid.

 

[Trevrev]

I know it was wrong and dangerous of the van driver to do what he did, but i'd love to know what the cyclist had done to provoke that reaction. It takes two to tango!!

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Which is of zero help, what we actually want to know is what the vehicle is. According to askmid it is a FORD TRANSIT 330SWB L/ROOF

That went well, didn't it?

 

[BSRU]

Justifiable retaliation

All I see on the vid is WVM cut across in front of the cyclists and slam the brakes on, by the time the cyclist has gone round him, WVM is already opening his door and taking a swipe at him, forcing cyclist to swerve in front of black cab. Only the hard braking by the cab driver prevented him hitting the cyclist.

IMHO no matter what pure supposition you apply to what may or may not have occurred prior to the incident we see, there can be no justification for the actions we see on the vid.

I think you missed the sarcasm, how can a cyclist door anyone?

Assault with video to back it up and witnesses, whatever happened before is irrelevant and probably unprovable.

 

[col]

On the face of it, cyclist (without head cam) experiences an attempt to door him, and then an assault designed to take him to the floor.

And gets the **** out of the situation, thoroughly shaken, without reg no; even if he has the number, he's put it down to "my word against his".

Hmmm. I might be wrong - it could well be justifiable retaliation by the WVM, because the cyclist had previously attempted to door the van, and assault its driver?

What does the cyclist attempting to door the van mean,sorry I dont know what that means? And if he tried to assualt the driver then he deserves anything he gets. If that is the case, then this vid shows wrongly what happened, only the outcome of someones wrongdoing previously.

 

[Jezston]

Looking at it fullscreen, it looks like the van driver tried to (or at least came close to) run the cyclist over before stopping.

 

[BentMikey]

Col, so you think assault is sometimes justifiable and thus shouldn't be prosecuted?

Do you accept that if something happened before, that might be prosecuted also, depending on evidence and on what happened?