It makes my blood boil!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Dell, I agree that the Standard do a good job of promoting cycling in London, but the comments on the web page lend an arguement to the fact that a significant minority simply do not like cyclists, period. And there is little that can be done to change their view point.

Exactly, I think that motorists can be divided into 3 categories:

a) motorists who think that they and they alone own the road and that we need to get out of their way
b) motorists who are ignorant of the law(s) as they apply to cyclists
....1) motorists who don't know how to drive around a confident/self-assured cyclist
c) motorists who do know the law, who do know how to drive around confident/self-assured cyclists
 
That happens to me as well. My bike is taken and then returned. It has new tyres, chainset and quite often a full service! When the driver is found and tied to the owner I hope they both go down. This is one of those times where facial recognition software would be a huge help.

One would think so, but it sometimes doesn't work out so good. Over in Ybor City when they first installed CCTV cameras they identified a person as being on the run for (if I remember correctly) failure to pay alimony payments or some such. The problem is that the person identified wasn't the person who was wanted.
 

d87heaven

New Member
Location
Suffolk
The afore mentioned video seems to have made the nationals and the bbc website now. Wonder if someone will come forward to help police with thier enquiries? Lets hope so.
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
One would think so, but it sometimes doesn't work out so good. Over in Ybor City when they first installed CCTV cameras they identified a person as being on the run for (if I remember correctly) failure to pay alimony payments or some such. The problem is that the person identified wasn't the person who was wanted.

Granted no system is perfect (yet) but it might help. That said the video is so clear that somebody must know the person.
 
That was my understanding of the law as well. Seems like a very flimsy excuse to hide behind. If he does not recognise the person driving the car then it must have been stolen. If he does know who was driving but refuses to say then I "think" that is perverting the course of justice.

What's worse, after seeing the video there are 4 clearly defined faces. I mean, who steals a car, takes his mates out, punches a cyclist then returns it.
 
Granted no system is perfect (yet) but it might help. That said the video is so clear that somebody must know the person.

Agreed, that is one clear video and one would think that someone out there somewhere would recognize at least one if not both people who got out of that car.

And as with most here I do not believe for a second the owner's claim to "not knowing" who was driving their car. As much as the average car (even a used car in good to excellent condition) these days I would think that the owner would want to know who was driving their car and when.

I know that over here it works out that (unless there is a police report that predates an incident) that the owner is (or is suppose to be) responsible for anything happens with their car. If it's in a crash (as we know there really isn't such a thing as an "accident" as that implies that it was beyond someone's control) and there is property damage, injury or lose of life. The owner is on the hook, and should be.

Unless they can prove that it was stolen.
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
Agreed, that is one clear video and one would think that someone out there somewhere would recognize at least one if not both people who got out of that car.

And as with most here I do not believe for a second the owner's claim to "not knowing" who was driving their car. As much as the average car (even a used car in good to excellent condition) these days I would think that the owner would want to know who was driving their car and when.

I know that over here it works out that (unless there is a police report that predates an incident) that the owner is (or is suppose to be) responsible for anything happens with their car. If it's in a crash (as we know there really isn't such a thing as an "accident" as that implies that it was beyond someone's control) and there is property damage, injury or lose of life. The owner is on the hook, and should be.

Unless they can prove that it was stolen.

I like that system. You do get some things right across the pond it seems :thumbsup: :biggrin:
 
It seems a little fishy doesn't. Lets hope that as this has had national press now the perpetrator will be recognised and given a good kicking brought to justice :biggrin:

Violence only begets violence.


As for: ''My car was left unlocked with the keys in it while at a funeral, I don't know who took it, but they returned it"
If I was the police I'd be looking at the funeral photos.

What really is interesting is the CDR in the passenger's hand. Now, why would a joyrider be quite tightly holding a recorded CD. Music for a funeral perhaps?
 

dellzeqq

pre-talced and mighty
Location
SW2
So what were the other cyclists doing when their mate was assaulted? I hope I never have to rely on any of them.
they were taken by surprise.

The cyclist hit will be known to quite a few on this forum. He's no lightweight - we did LEJoG in five days together. He's also a solicitor, and a tenacious solicitor at that.
 
Top Bottom