- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Singapore cyclist and lorry (video still via ROADS.sg on Facebook).PNGVideo: Singapore driver uses lorry to knock cyclist from bike
A video showing a lorry driver knocking deliberately knocking a cyclist off his bike after the cyclist hit out and broke the vehicle’s wing mirror has received more than 2 million views on Facebook – and generated a huge amount of debate that one road.cc reader tells us is reflective of the level of anti-cyclist feeling in the country.
The incident, which happened on Saturday in the Pasir Ris district of the the south-east Asian country, has resulted in both the cyclist and the lorry driver being arrested, reports The Straits Times – the former for “rash riding and mischief,” the latter for “rash driving.”
In the video which was taken by a rear-facing dashcam on a vehicle in front, the cyclist, riding with a clubmate, has taken the centre of the lane, with the lorry driver behind him.
The driver beeps his horn twice as they set off from a set of traffic lights and tries to squeeze past, with the cyclist using his forearm to deliver a well-aimed blow to the wing-mirror, causing it to drop off.
The driver then veers sharply to his left, knocking the cyclist from his bike and onto a grass verge.
According to The Straits Times, the driver has claimed he swerved to the left because he heard a noise and thought he might have hit a vehicle on his right.
The video has now received more than 2.3 million views on the ROADS.sg Facebook page, where the post implies that it’s fine for a lorry driver to use his vehicle to knock a cyclist from his bike provided it does not result in the rider being injured.
In a second video that shows the aftermath of the incident, the cyclist - apparently unhurt - can be seen snatching the driver’s phone from him as he uses it to film video or take photos, before returning it.
Referring to coverage of the incident in The Straits Times and subsequent comments by readers about the incident, road.cc reader Jason Kynoch told us: “We need some help here in Singapore. The local media is constantly reporting along negative lines concerning cyclists.
“I just don't know where to start with this one, but the cycling community here needs help,” he added. “This link shows the level of debate here.”
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- mark1a 9 min 25 sec ago
Well... as it happens, I have the Bosch EasyPump. I bought it a year ago with some Christmas gift money. Its main use is on my van which doesn't...
- eburtthebike 58 min 52 sec ago
"...as mayor aims to bring “credibility” to active travel initiatives...."...
- Simon E 3 hours 10 min ago
I do too. It's a 'real world' read fill of people doing real world riding instead of a glossy lightweight brochure for spenders and dreamers....
- FionaJJ 3 hours 55 min ago
Exactly. I won't lie, I did quite enjoy pointing out that the reason olive oil had got so much more expensive was because of the droughts in the...
- chrisonabike 7 hours 22 min ago
What about all the computer misuse? Stop with the downloading already!
- brooksby 7 hours 45 min ago
"Professional Triangle tire Punctured tire Nail for Spike Anti-Theft car Safety Emergency car" Sorry, but WHAT??
- HollisJ 9 hours 39 min ago
Have you seen the size of Micras these days? Now, it it were a Micra from the 80s...
Add new comment
34 comments
On the subject of twats which somebody mentioned above- one good example of a twat would be a cyclist who violently smashes (or otherwise hits) a car without any good reason and doesn't expect the strong likelyhood - that the driver will, in the heat of the moment, knock the aggressor off his or her bike.
As for you Don, what part of some cyclists are aholes don't you like?
I love cycling. I cycle all the time. I don't drive a car. I detest ahole drivers and I detest ahole cylists just as much as each other.
Never have I said most cylists are aholes. I have said some. Clearly there are a few people on this site who think ahole cyclists don't exist.
That the cyclist is never wrong.
Such an attitude is a great disservice to all the vast majority of excellent cyclists.
Indeed, some cyclists are arseholes, but I'm not convinced you have a bike (top tip- you can actually fucking swear like a real cunting adult here). I most certainly wouldn't condone using a motorised vehicle as a weapon to teach them a lesson or mete out my own form of justice.
I am pleased that you don't hold a driving licence, again a claim I doubt, as your attitude towards other human beings who you have decided are arseholes fucking stinks!
Some of my best friends are cyclists.
The cyclist smashed a mirror or violently hit the car for pretty much no reason whatsoever. It could have resulted in the deaths of many people and you sympathise with him?
Can you explain why? Over what? a slightly impatient, if hardly aggressive, driver who would have liked to get past them, and then was maliciously invited to pass by the ahole cyclist, only to be violently attacked risking the lives of countless people.
Not a single person has said what the driver did was correct or justified. Understandable though? Sorry, but yes, it is. It is absolutley inarguable that at least 50% of drivers would have reacted exactly the same.
Like i said previously, the cyclist deserved exactly what he got.
And this, from someone who said "I'm by no means anti-cyclist," some 24 hours ago.
I'd hate to see your rant of a group that you proper dislike.
I think the real story here is that there is anything to discuss.
You could argue that the cyclist's riding was inconsiderate, although I would disagree.
You could argue that the cyclist shouldn't have reacted the way he did - I would say you are technically correct but I can sympathise with the cyclist.
But anyone who argues that what the driver did was in any way justified or proportional or an understandable reaction is crazy and should not be allowed on the road, especially not in charge of a motor vehicle (frankly locked away in a secure institute is probably best for public safety). Deliberately driving into someone is not OK. No ifs, no buts.
As the video is mute my theory is that the lorry driver used his horn at the cyclist, probably because he was riding abreast, the cyclist got pissed off and then happened what you see.
In some countries riding abreast is permitted, in others it isn't and I will have to agree. It is very dangerous for a couple of slow riders to occupy the full width of a road lane. If they are leisure riders like these guys it isn't much different from a couple of lycra guys running in the middle of the road strangling traffic.
In any case bicycle riders are a special category of road users that their needs haven't really been taken into account when designing road infrastructure and corresponding laws. So forget the law and do what you have to do stay safe and efficient. Bicycle a faster than feet zero emissions vehicle, that runs on burnt cholesterol and obesity could be the holy grail of transportation, so worldwide helmets should be optional, red lights should be more flexible for cyclists and so on for people who want to go to their work cheaply and without any damage to environment and air quality. But such rights that eventually have to be given to cyclists, shouldn't be abused by thinking you can block other road users, especially when you are a leisure rider.
Of course though the lorry driver should be accused of attempted manslaughter. He has no excuse.
agree with those above, I cant see a damaged mirror, the mirror is black and the object that falls is white.
1) the lane is not really wide enough for a safe pass yoyu can see this by how much space is next to the lorry when it is behind the cyclists. would you really want to cycle in that gap?
2) the camera car shows how a pass can be achived by moving into the second lane and moving back again
3) the cars in the other lane are not making more progress than the cyclists
4) there is not sufficient room between the camera car and the cyclists for the lorry to complete an overtake, so what we have here is a typical entitled motor user committing to overtake without planning their pass properly, as there is nowhere to go afterwards, and the result will be an extended period of a heavy motor vehicle travelling side by side with vulnerable road user in a narrow lane, which is definitely not safe.
simply there is no reason or space to pass here, and somehow this is the cyclists fault? I can't understand why anyone who has cycled on the roads would come to the conclusion that encouraging a pass in this situation is sensible.
The rider hitting the van was all the excuse the driver needed. The driver was after a reaction to justify his assault.
The rider hitting the van was all the excuse the driver needed. The driver was after a reaction to justify his assault.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/driver-gets-life-for-murd...
This is what can happen when a driver deliberately hits a cyclist.
There is no justification for the lorry driver's actions.
I'm a big enthusiast of cycling and have been road cycling heavily for almost 2 years now. I don't drive (though I used to in my younger years).
I'm by no means anti-cyclist, yet I still realize that there are *some* ahole cyclists out there.
Watching this video, the cyclist appears to be behaving like an idiot. He moves over to indicate to the driver he can overtake and then as the driver does so, instead of moving a little into the full metre or more of empty space he has left, he stays super close to the van and punches the mirror.
He could've just stayed in the middle of the road if he wanted to but no, he wanted to punch the van and risk the safety of himself and many others.
And perhaps he has money coming out his ears but it's also a good way to total your bike.
Yeh ,I agree it looks rather like he threw a bottle too but whatever the object or if he struck the mirror with his fist, the cyclist is wrong. He moves some to the left as if to indicate that he's making space for the driver to pass, then look at just how much darned road he is hogging compared to his friend in front at the time he lashes out at the van.
I think the cyclist just wanted to punch the van. While the driver's reaction was not correct, it was highly predictable, and the cyclist deserved what he got. If you want to be stupid enough to punch a van or car for doing nothing and risk your life as a result..??
Hopefully in the future the cyclist will think twice about such foolish dangerous behaviour.
I am I the only one who sees the cylist throwing a water bottle, not breaking a mirror?
When they are stopped at the lights you can see the water bottle in the cage. Between then and the incident I can't see the rider reaching for the bottle at all.
It looks like he slapped the drivers mirror as the driver was deliberatly crowdning him to squeeze past, rather than change lanes to overtake. I'm not saying that it's right, but the truck was close enough that the rider didn't struggle to properly tw@t the mirror.
It definately is a biddon that hits the truck ,note the glitch in the video ,at the about time when the cyclist was grabbing it
It definately is a biddon that hits the truck ,note the glitch in the video ,at the about time when the cyclist was grabbing it
I don't think it is even a water bottle. It looks like a piece of paper - maybe a gel wrapper or something. Whatever, he clearly does not break the wing mirror and it is irresponsible of road cc to be misreporting in this way. Some twat may believe that damaging a vehicle merits a potentially lethal response from a driver.
Think about the physics involved; there is no way that a mounted cyclist can detach a wing mirror with a casual backwards swipe like that. Who do people think the guy is? Bruce Lee?
That footage is why Legs11's war against the motorist won't ever go his way. Smash a mirror, ride a motorbike.
Dunno why you are still ranting on about Legs11's bit of trolling (my guess is that BTBS has given his unrestrained id it's own forum account).
But clearly if he were to wage a 'war against the motorists' he'd do better to notice how vulnerable cars are when they are parked unattended on the public street all night.
If you are going to base your arguments on 'might is right' (rather than morality and practicality, both of which, to be clear, point strongly against a terrorist campaign as a useful tactic), you need to at least be consistent about it. Your logic seems to be that the only question is whether you can get away with it.
PS Riding a motorbike is dangerous and a noise-nusiance, why would I want to do that?
BECAUSE THEY ARE FUN! All the recent bikes are legally stupidly quiet and all have ABS. Only dangerous because of things that make a bicycle dangerous.....other road users and you not being able to use it properly. Don't go 75 in a 30 and stuff like people pulling out on you isn't as unavoidable.
It does seem that the cyclist had an issue with the truck as when he pulled up to the rear of the car he could have pulled over as his cycling partner did and gave the truck room to go buy instead of sitting in the middle of the lane. We all have to share the road so lets just make life easier all round.
By the cyclist doing nothing wrong, you can surmise that the cyclist had an issue with the truck driver. All those pedestrians walking down the pavements must give you plenty of sleepless nights too.
Why do you make an issue about pedestrians. It is obvious that he has an issue wih the truck driver why wait in the middle of the road. his friend waited at the side of the road also if he didnt want to wait at the lights there is a cycle path that he could of used. Why do you feel we have to go to war with drivers.
I have two cars.
I don't understand your point.
The point is why make a issue. he proved his piont by waiting in the middle of the road just move to the side LIKE HIS FRIEND and niether would have been charged. IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE or do you not agree with that as you have two car that you must drive at the same time as it appears you are never wrong
You're the one making an issue.
What's wrong with taking the lane? There's nothing illegal and nothing to gain from the truck's point of view as there is clearly a lot of traffic and the camera is only a few metres further ahead.
Why are you defending, as a cyclist, the truck driver's impatience.
Let's look at the friend who pulled over.
What's the safe passing distance?
I understand, although not written in law, that it's 1,5m. Now let's add that on to the 0,5m from kerbside and add on 0,4m wide bars. How was a safe pass of the friend safe, in any way, shape or form possible without crossing the white line?
Understand this from a driver's perspective, there was no need to pass.
From the cyclists perspective there was no need to cede anything.
That driver had NO reason apart from some self appointed priority, that you are supporting, to physically attack the cyclist.
Happy driving and I hope that we meet on the road.
Why are you on a cycling site trying to defend piss poor, illegal driving?
As a driver, I couldn't condone the use of a vehicle to mete out punishment to other road users irrespective of what wrongs I think they have done.
I
Why did the truck driver not just wait rather than making an issue IT’S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE or do you not agree that people should use the road with consideration for others?
The other question is, do you know what the cycling laws are in Singapore?
Davidt and bikezero are anti cyclists who come here with their victim blaming/road are for sharing (in order to let the motorised vehicle through) muppeted ideas. Some of their best friends are cyclists, apparently.
I have been a cyclist for 47 years and how you can say i am anti cyclist with out even knowing me is bizzar and just goes to show how up yourself you are I own 11 bike for all types of riding and cycle to work every day I dont have a car. So get off your high horse. Happy Christmas and good will too all men even YOU XXXX
Pages