Angry cyclist steals driver’s keys and cycles off – police appeal for witnesses

rjfrussell wrote:

FFS, is it any wonder cyclists have a bad name.

Presumably if an American cyclist got out his arsenal and shot up an entire highway you fucktards would come on here and say that it was perfectly justifiable because someone passed him a bit too close.

We need to make it safer to cycle on our streets and roads, and that is never going to happen if idiots like this behave like this, and then we try to defend it

This behaviour from the cyclist is obviously, blindingly obviously, utterly unacceptable.

It doesn't matter what the "full story" is.  It doesn't matter what "led up to it".  It is still utterly unacceptable.

We must say so, if we are to have any hope of winning the war and making streets safe for cyclists.

Fomenting the "them-and-us" attitude that so many do, is only going to provoke those driving the 2tonne weapons, and those riding the 8kg steeds are going to come off second if that happens.

the fact is bad car drivers kill, cyclist don't no matter how bad they cycle!

rjfrussell wrote:

This behaviour from the cyclist is obviously, blindingly obviously, utterly unacceptable.

Judge all you like, vigilantism is a social response to poor policing, and it will occur in every society where those conditions exist.

My only surprise is why it took so long.

rjfrussell wrote:

This behaviour from the cyclist is obviously, blindingly obviously, utterly unacceptable.

It doesn't matter what the "full story" is.  It doesn't matter what "led up to it".  It is still utterly unacceptable.

I must say I agree. Most cyclists are drivers as well. Can any cyclist/driver put his hand up and say he's never made a mistake? I doubt it. I've come to expect this holier than thou attitude from the commenters here but sometimes it takes me by surprise. A bit of give and take is needed, we can't all be perfect.

FrankH]</p>

<p>[quote=rjfrussell wrote:

This behaviour from the cyclist is obviously, blindingly obviously, utterly unacceptable.

I totally agree.

There may well have been something that led up to this.  Or there may not.  We don't know.

Behaviour like this is evidence that the cyclist in question will act in an unacceptable fashion.  From the evidence it is reasonable to think he is just a dangerous individual who happens to ride a bike as well.

Unfortunately road.cc and the comments on it show that cyclists are as prone to over-inflated feelings of self-importance as car drivers.

Not that I am intolerant of intolerant people at all!!!!

mithrasm]<p>[quote=FrankH wrote:

rjfrussell wrote:

This behaviour from the cyclist is obviously, blindingly obviously, utterly unacceptable.

 

I totally agree.

There may well have been something that led up to this.  Or there may not.  We don't know.

Behaviour like this is evidence that the cyclist in question will act in an unacceptable fashion.  From the evidence it is reasonable to think he is just a dangerous individual who happens to ride a bike as well.

Unfortunately road.cc and the comments on it show that cyclists are as prone to over-inflated feelings of self-importance as car drivers.

Not that I am intolerant of intolerant people at all!!!!

Again, totally agreed - I see a lot of bad drivers when I'm out and about, but also see a lot of bad cyclists - If a guy in a van saw a cyclist going the wrong way down a one way street, or cycling on the pavement and took it upon himself to confiscate the bike (in the interests of public safety, you understand), I suspect the response here would have been very different..

We don't know the full story, so it's difficult to pass a fully formed judgement, but generally, I'd argue that any form of vigilantism is a slippery slope...

FrankH wrote:

I must say I agree. Most cyclists are drivers as well. Can any cyclist/driver put his hand up and say he's never made a mistake? I doubt it. I've come to expect this holier than thou attitude from the commenters here but sometimes it takes me by surprise. A bit of give and take is needed, we can't all be perfect.

And last time i had a driver  clip me, rather than escalate the driver simply said sorry and made sure no damage done, and yes i was ready to rip his head off for gross stupidity and not looking. Contrast with when i have been cut up and told to get off the f**king road, which escalated very quickly. 

Cyclists, Drivers, we are human and we make mistakes, the point is what you do when it happens? Apologise and move on or get defensive and aggressive? 

Throw into the mix far too many drivers who THINK they know the law and expect others to get out of the way, NOW. 

FrankH wrote:

rjfrussell wrote:

This behaviour from the cyclist is obviously, blindingly obviously, utterly unacceptable.

It doesn't matter what the "full story" is.  It doesn't matter what "led up to it".  It is still utterly unacceptable.

I must say I agree. Most cyclists are drivers as well. Can any cyclist/driver put his hand up and say he's never made a mistake? I doubt it. I've come to expect this holier than thou attitude from the commenters here but sometimes it takes me by surprise. A bit of give and take is needed, we can't all be perfect.

How fucking hard is it really to understand. A badly behaved tit on a bicycle is a danger mostly to himself. A badly behaved tit driving a car is a danger to many people. That is why we make  anyone who wants the privilege  of driving take a test, and is why we should worry a whole lot  more about crap drivers. The problem with 'give and take' is that what most drivers mean by it is 'get out of my way  while I  take the road'.

rjfrussell wrote:

FFS, is it any wonder cyclists have a bad name.

Presumably if an American cyclist got out his arsenal and shot up an entire highway you fucktards would come on here and say that it was perfectly justifiable because someone passed him a bit too close.

We need to make it safer to cycle on our streets and roads, and that is never going to happen if idiots like this behave like this, and then we try to defend it

This behaviour from the cyclist is obviously, blindingly obviously, utterly unacceptable.

It doesn't matter what the "full story" is.  It doesn't matter what "led up to it".  It is still utterly unacceptable.

We must say so, if we are to have any hope of winning the war and making streets safe for cyclists.

Fomenting the "them-and-us" attitude that so many do, is only going to provoke those driving the 2tonne weapons, and those riding the 8kg steeds are going to come off second if that happens.

What a self-contradictory post!

You complain about 'them and us attitude' while yourself invoking the tedious 'giving us a bad name' garbage. Cyclists have a bad name because many drivers have a deep sense of entitlement and a lot of political power. This isn't going to make any difference to that.

And since when was taking car keys on a par with shooting people?

I don't think what the guy did was right. But 'utterly unacceptable'? Bit over-the-top. How can you use that phrase when seriously injuring people is reguarly accepted on our roads?

Edit - I mean, using a hand-held phone while driving is 'utterly unacceptable' and yet its widely accepted. What does the term even mean, really?

Anyway, I've no idea what happened here, or if the cyclist was a particularly belligerent one or not, but its hardly the most serious incident that will have occured on our roads this week.

rjfrussell wrote:

Presumably if an American cyclist got out his arsenal and shot up an entire highway you fucktards would come on here and say that it was perfectly justifiable because someone passed him a bit too close.

We need to make it safer to cycle on our streets and roads, and that is never going to happen if idiots like this behave like this, and then we try to defend it ... We must say so, if we are to have any hope of winning the war and making streets safe for cyclists.

 

I cite bovine excretia regards your prose, Sir.

One finds your assumption that the denziens hereabouts are incapable of rational, subtle judgement of a proffered situation most unsavory.

One would also like to understand this curious concept of 'we'. As far as one knows, one owes not the remotest allegiance or responsability to any other person, on wheels two or four - nomoreso than your good self does to a reprobate 'afoot' in the town, as no doubt your good self has occasion to be.

I respectfully direct you to the nearest section of coastline, where you are invited to proceed perpendicular to said in a direction away from land. 

rjfrussell wrote:

FFS, is it any wonder cyclists have a bad name.

Presumably if an American cyclist got out his arsenal and shot up an entire highway you fucktards would come on here and say that it was perfectly justifiable because someone passed him a bit too close.

We need to make it safer to cycle on our streets and roads, and that is never going to happen if idiots like this behave like this, and then we try to defend it

This behaviour from the cyclist is obviously, blindingly obviously, utterly unacceptable.

It doesn't matter what the "full story" is.  It doesn't matter what "led up to it".  It is still utterly unacceptable.

We must say so, if we are to have any hope of winning the war and making streets safe for cyclists.

Fomenting the "them-and-us" attitude that so many do, is only going to provoke those driving the 2tonne weapons, and those riding the 8kg steeds are going to come off second if that happens.

The only thing giving cyclists a bad name is the wholesale perpetuation of the popular now adopted myth that anything any cyclist does ever gives cyclists a bad name. 

ron611087 wrote:

Mmm. And the drivers the innocent party in this?

 

Tend to agree, whilst taking the keys isn't right you have to ask what led upto this? 

Seen whilst wandering home earlier, a car pulled out of a parking place straight in front of a bus, bus served onto pavement to avoid. Driver was completely oblivious of the world around him, moral, just because the driver doesn't think they did anything wrong doesnt mean they did nothing wrong. 

mrmo wrote:

ron611087 wrote:

Mmm. And the drivers the innocent party in this?

 

 

Tend to agree, whilst taking the keys isn't right...

I'd argue if the driver is intoxicated, drugged, or clearly unfit to drive due to age/medical condition/attitude, you have an *obligation* to yourself and other road users to remove their ability to operate a lethal item of machinery.

If you remove a knife from someone brandishing it about and shouting angrily you'll be hailed a 'have-a-go hero'.  Remove the keys from a mum in charge of a 2.5-ton 4x4 who's texting merrily away on the school run alongside footpaths full of kids? I wonder what the press would say about that...

I think in this age of utterly ineffectual road policing and equally ineffectual sentencing we will see a lot more of this sort of thing.

mrmo wrote:

ron611087 wrote:

Mmm. And the drivers the innocent party in this?

 

 

Tend to agree, whilst taking the keys isn't right you have to ask what led upto this? 

 

[...]

Yup; as TFA mentions that "[h]e was cycling alongside another male cyclist", I'm going with driver objecting to his riding two abreast & it escalating from there. 

ron611087 wrote:

Mmm. And the drivers the innocent party in this?

It does seem like there's a big chunk of the story missing. Nobody just does that for no reason at all 

ron611087 wrote:

Mmm. And the drivers the innocent party in this?

Well, he might be. You can't say on the basis of this article.

That said, it's reasonable to assume there's more to this than a cyclist riding up to a random driver out of the blue and taking his keys - whether the driver is aware of it or not, he's clearly ticked the guy off somehow.

ron611087 wrote:

Mmm. And the drivers the innocent party in this?

Note to any copper reading this: Vigilantism is a symptom of nonexistent, insufficient, or inefficient law enforcement.

But that would never apply in the UK would it?

we don't know, but because this is a site for cyclists, the majority of people have decided that this was a justifiable incident, despite not actually knowing anything further than has been reported.

By way of example, what if the driver, who is in his sixties, has a couple of hardnut sons, who will clearly think their dad was in the right (as per the positive bias towards the cyclist on here), and take offence to a bloke half his age assaulting him? If they can find out who the cyclist is, is it suddenly ok for them to go and drag him out his house and give him a shoeing?

namesarehard wrote:

ron611087 wrote:

Mmm. And the drivers the innocent party in this?

Note to any copper reading this: Vigilantism is a symptom of nonexistent, insufficient, or inefficient law enforcement.

But that would never apply in the UK would it?

we don't know, but because this is a site for cyclists, the majority of people have decided that this was a justifiable incident, despite not actually knowing anything further than has been reported. By way of example, what if the driver, who is in his sixties, has a couple of hardnut sons, who will clearly think their dad was in the right (as per the positive bias towards the cyclist on here), and take offence to a bloke half his age assaulting him? If they can find out who the cyclist is, is it suddenly ok for them to go and drag him out his house and give him a shoeing?

Good response, but it misses the jist of my comment. It's not an endorsement of vigilantism but an observation of the circumstanses that cause it.

ron611087 wrote:

Mmm. And the drivers the innocent party in this?

Note to any copper reading this: Vigilantism is a symptom of nonexistent, insufficient, or inefficient law enforcement.

But that would never apply in the UK would it?

Extrordinarily silly post.

So, the police have an injured driver, who's had his keys taken by a cyclist, of whom they have a picture, and they appeal for information to find out who he is, to investigate the matter.

And that becomes: "Vigilantism is a symptom of nonexistent, insufficient, or inefficient law enforcement."

For a forum that beats on and on (sometimes justifiably) about the dibble doing nothing about road rage and poor behaviour, the hypocracy of this guff is simply astonishing.

WTF do you want them to do?

BarryBianchi wrote:

ron611087 wrote:

Mmm. And the drivers the innocent party in this?

Note to any copper reading this: Vigilantism is a symptom of nonexistent, insufficient, or inefficient law enforcement.

But that would never apply in the UK would it?

 

Extrordinarily silly post.

So, the police have an injured driver, who's had his keys taken by a cyclist, of whom they have a picture, and they appeal for information to find out who he is, to investigate the matter.

And that becomes: "Vigilantism is a symptom of nonexistent, insufficient, or inefficient law enforcement."

For a forum that beats on and on (sometimes justifiably) about the dibble doing nothing about road rage and poor behaviour, the hypocracy of this guff is simply astonishing.

WTF do you want them to do?

I think what he is saying is that if someone does not feel the legal system will support them / provide justice, then they are likely to take the law into their own hands.

Case in point... assume for a second that the driver had acted in a way that had endangered the life of the cyclist. Maybe it was only the quick wits or pure good fortune that stopped that cyclist becoming a KSI stat?  What course of action is there for that cyclist to take?

We can discuss that, but the answer is none. The driver has got away with a life threateningly dangerous action, and they are free to do it again and again until the inevitable happens.

How long before that cyclist takes the law into his own hands? How long before he feels the need to vent his feelings to the driver in question? How long before the built up frustration of repeated threats to his life will leave that person unable to partake in reasoned discussion, and incidents like this happen?

Inaction is an action, and for every action there is a reaction. The first comment to me is band on point. 

Its great this was looked at by teh police... it was assault. But rather than simply labeling the cyclist as a psycho (might have been, might not have been), the first post gave an opinion why these situations may happen.

Why these things happen are important to a lot of cyclists reading this, as I can imagine all of us are somewhere on the line between being good-serving memeber of society and frustrated vigilanty. We want to know context to know how far away any of us may be from this. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

The first comment to me is band on point. 
 

I think you have the wong Police.