Bikers vs. Drivers and smoked mirrors (story)

[Linas.P]

I guess that is not very surprising or new, but it seems that relations between different groups of the road users are not based on mutual respect, more like rivalry and disrespect. My personal opinion (just a personal opinion!) is that this is result of government making scapegoat of motorists, hence say cyclists or bikers are indirectly encouraged to disrespect them.. which maybe in some goverment minds discourages people from driving?! That is kind of reflected in heavy handed approach to any mistakes/offences drivers make and contrary almost exemplary turning blind eye on offences made by cyclist or to lesser extent bike riders.

Anyway.. enough introduction... lets get to the point.

So I was driving back home on Friday and stuck in standard evening rush on A13. I was side by side with large van in mid lane (I was in outside) and bikes were riding on passenger side. I might have been driving little bit wide in my lane, but nowhere near the lines - kind of right in the middle, whereas I could have been more to the outside. Anyway, all the bikes were fine except of one three wheeler moped, because they are much wider - it tired to pass me exactly at the time when that big van was next to me.

The result is that the "triped" could not fit or rider did not have enough skill to fit, got angry and deliberately hit my mirror with the hand, it seems damaged the screen as well (the mirror is actually auto dimming screen). Just to be clear there are no damage from outside, just a mark of the glove on the dirt/dust - I doubt there is even a scratch. But he mirror/s creen no longer works (it banged quite well against the glass) - the inside is permanently dark and outside is permanently mirror like:

Got it on dashcam, but the number plates of moped were overexposed and from the footage I couldn't work out what they were (I seen they were kind of weirdly arranged AP 10 ....)  , so didn't even bothered to report it.

Here is the clip:

https://youtu.be/4TQoylI8xDM

Today as it happened, I was in the first row by the lights and the same rider filtered and stopped in front of me! Tried to have a chat with him, but result was pretty much expected  - I was told to "**** off and get a life" (not my words, just quoting). However, at least I got the picture of the number plates this time (AP 10 NUT - indeed):

What is the point of the story.. I guess that is pretty much my first paragraph. Filtering is legal, but it is not like rider have a priority over cars driving in the lanes - you can do it if there is sufficient space to pass.. if not, you wait.. hence it is called "filtering"...  it just seems riders takes it too much for granted in this country (in other countries it is actually illegal.. and to be honest I am very divided on whenever it should be allowed). And I am not just looking from my perspective... I am thinking of getting bike my self.. looking of getting CBT maybe in spring. I just don't understand why people think they have a right to damage or even touch other people property - why they think they can do it and who they think gave them such right of hitting mirrors of cars they doesn't like?!

Next steps... I don't know it is almost like "to be or not to be". Technically, it is criminal damage... that is slightly better than hit and run (and we know already police don't investigate "hit and run's"). Am I prepared to go trough magistrates court, just to be told "it cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he damaged the mirror.. even though he clearly hit it" (in my experience proving that somebody hit your car is not enough). Not sure... I would like to be principal and teach him a lesson of "don't touch what is not yours".. I have to think about it..

Ohh... almost forgotten if you interested if it was reported to all knowing and keen insurers - no it wasn't. This is not traffic collision, the riders insurance won't pay for him not being able to hold his hands on the wheel and technically there were no accident (to begin with it was deliberate). It is purely criminal offence which should go trough the court and not insurance. 

P.S. Moderators - I guess this would fit better in "motoring and legal issues", but this have happened to IS250... so maybe it can stay here?

[rich1068]

6 hours ago, Linas.P said:

I guess that is not very surprising or new, but it seems that relations between different groups of the road users are not based on mutual respect, more like rivalry and disrespect. My personal opinion (just a personal opinion!) is that this is result of government making scapegoat of motorists, hence say cyclists or bikers are indirectly encouraged to disrespect them.. which maybe in some government minds discourages people from driving?!

Hell of a conspiracy there Linus. I've no idea what you mean with your scapegoating comment but it appears you've just met one of society's many dickheads. A sub-culture that seems to be on the increase. And they can be motorcyclists, cyclists, motorists, pedestrians or people wearing hats. Makes no odds. Individuals who clearly just don't give a toss about anyone else. My commiserations, it's a shame about the dashcam footage. 

The only thing we can do in situations like this is to take a deep breath and make more of an effort to treat people how we would like to be treated. 

[Texas]

Think I would have got out and given one of his mirrors a slap when you saw him the second time! 

 

[rich1068]

The temptation is strong but solves nothing though does it?

I'm very much a karma sort of person. Not in a waving your chakras and chanting at crystals way but more based on cold statistics. If he continues to drive like a ******, especially as exposed as that, he's a lot more likely to come a serious cropper than Linus. I'm not going to wish him ill, he'll eventually manage to do that all by himself.

[javadude]

My first lexus was hit by a motorcycle courier weaving around traffic. It went to court and the judge decided that on the balance of probability it was more likely that I'd changed into a different lane than the one that I needed for my journey (on journey I did every day) than the motorcycle courier had been filtering.

[Texas]

9 hours ago, rich1068 said:

The temptation is strong but solves nothing though does it?

I'm very much a karma sort of person. Not in a waving your chakras and chanting at crystals way but more based on cold statistics. If he continues to drive like a ******, especially as exposed as that, he's a lot more likely to come a serious cropper than Linus. I'm not going to wish him ill, he'll eventually manage to do that all by himself.

So he might! 

But did you win your car in a free raffle? I guess not and I know I have worked damn hard to get mine so if some Jeremy Kyle contestant wants to treat it ( my property) like dirt then it is probably gone end up with us both rolling around on the ground and getting a few scratches to say the least, straight after an exchange of expletives has taken place. Sure it ain't gonna fix anything but I'm gonna sleep a whole lot better and mr tricycle might think twice in the future.

[Linas.P]

On 11/7/2017 at 12:57 PM, javadude said:

My first lexus was hit by a motorcycle courier weaving around traffic. It went to court and the judge decided that on the balance of probability it was more likely that I'd changed into a different lane than the one that I needed for my journey (on journey I did every day) than the motorcycle courier had been filtering.

I did not change the lane... he simply found my mirror in his "triped" way and made some extra space by hitting it. Interestingly, he hit it after he has already passed. 

@rich1068 I probably should have called it "rant/story" - though what you called conspiracy theory is my current feeling of the situation. I might be wrong of course... but it is based on observations commuting in London. It seems there are no rules cyclists or motorcyclists should follow and only enforcement is against car drivers. Additionally, there is general opinion in public that driving is bad and car drivers are some sort of offenders and polluters. I personally disagree with this view and I don't think individuals commuting is an issue (after long list of other more important issues), but after discussing the topic with many people that seems to be a general opinion, especially by non-drivers or even more cyclists. As well, I can see and have experience several times police and courts treating car related crimes as ... basically "non-issue", almost like "this happens to you because you drive,  don't drive and you will have no issues, if you would have taken public transport it would have not happened".

What I make out of this ... some people just have opinion and that is it, but others might take that as an encouragement to disrespect car drivers... maybe... 

Anyway... reported it to police.. not expecting much to happen. Will chase police at some point, because I am certain they won't pick it up without other kind of "encouragement". 

[Linas.P]

Just to note as well:

I was reported as type of Criminal damage or Arson (Report a crime), not as part of road traffic accident (Report a road traffic incident):

Quote

Criminal damage is the intentional and malicious damage to the home, other property or vehicles and includes graffiti.

Clearly rider slowed down and deliberately hit the mirror causing damage, which counts under intentional and malicious, rather than accidental and traffic related like "hit and run".

[Verbout]

Follow him until he stops, put on a ski mask, grab an aluminium bbb (they don’t break) knock seven bells out of his bike, making sure you hit every panel and accessory.

Thats Karma.....:)

[Spacewagon52]

3 hours ago, Verbout said:

Follow him until he stops, put on a ski mask, grab an aluminium bbb (they don’t break) knock seven bells out of his bike, making sure you hit every panel and accessory.

Thats Karma.....:)

Unfortunately that is criminal damage - very frustrating but he will get his just desserts! Only you will not be there to see it. Check the MOT history of the plate in a few months to find out if it is still on the road.

[Verbout]

4 hours ago, Spacewagon52 said:

Unfortunately that is criminal damage - very frustrating but he will get his just desserts! Only you will not be there to see it. Check the MOT history of the plate in a few months to find out if it is still on the road.

I think it would be a little more than criminal damage......it would be a right-off....

[Verbout]

18 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Just to note as well:

I was reported as type of Criminal damage or Arson (Report a crime), not as part of road traffic accident (Report a road traffic incident):

Clearly rider slowed down and deliberately hit the mirror causing damage, which counts under intentional and malicious, rather than accidental and traffic related like "hit and run".

That’s not the definition of criminal damage, the word malicious doesn’t come into it.

See Criminal Damage Act 1971. As commonly used as the Theft Act 1968, Public Order Act 1986. Bread and butter Policing.

[dutchie01]

8 hours ago, Verbout said:

Follow him until he stops, put on a ski mask, grab an aluminium bbb (they don’t break) knock seven bells out of his bike, making sure you hit every panel and accessory.

Thats Karma.....:)

Hear Hear!  that is in the true spirit of the late and great oliver hardy and stan laurel. Remember those scenes with the T fords?  ( for the young ones just go to you tube). I would love to see Linas hacking away at that tricycle ( which is a bit of a looser bike to be frank).

linas make sure you have it on cam and post it up here!

on a more serious note it is a serious problem, those anti social bikers and in inner cities cyclists. I almost hit a cyclist yesterday. At night, raining, pitch dark ,in a city, she was wearing black clothes no lights and driving in the wrong way of a one way street. i could hit the brakes in the last second. it scared the **** out of me.

seems anarchy is taking over the streets..

[Linas.P]

Surprisingly, cyclists are allowed to drive wrong way if it is one way street. They are completely uncontrolled menace in London, dangerous for the pedestrians and for themselves. Completely not rules applies to them and if any rule actually applies it is not enforced. Hopefully, the new amendment going to come in force for them to wear "high-wiz", but even then it is not exactly clear who will enforce it. I am fine with people riding on the roads, but then they must adhere to to rules and their gear should be somehow regulated..

I was hit once in the back when trying to cross the one way street - I came to pedestrian crossing and it was red, but is was late evening and not many cars, so I looked if there are any cars only one way.... because hey that is one way street, stepped into the road and was hit by cyclists to the back... Luckily not injuries. The cyclist didn't even stop and said something like "look where you going"... I was kind of shocked so didn't realised what to do before it was too late (cyclist disappeared in the dark). Few minutes later I was furious, would have punch all of the c*** of of him....

Few month ago was during morning peak was hit by cyclist again crossing the massive tower bridge crossroad (hate design of it) on pedestrian crossing and walking trough the green. Cyclist tried to jump red lights between the trucks and obviously had not clue what is around him. Was riding sort of track bike, with something which looked like a brakes, but on those skinny tires there was no way he could stop it... again no injuries, but no apologies either.

Finally, few weeks ago nearly run over one on roundabout in the evening. It was like 8 PM, but it is getting very dark already and cyclist was same as in @dutchie01situation, completely black, without any lights, black bike, black backpack... and clearly without any brains.. There are street light around outside of the 3 lanes roundabout, but he was crossing it straight troughs the middle, would he have crossed it by the edge maybe street lights would have illuminated him a bit, but now he was literally like ghost coming out of the dark. Few seconds later and I would have run him over, but cut past him maybe 2 meters in front. No way I could have seen him and just realised when he almost ride into my door.

@Verbout- I believe that definition it is what they call "plain language" explanation, not necessary legally correct. But it suited my situation better than "road accident", so I used the report which for me seems to be more appropriate. Furthermore, from my experience "hit and run" are no longer considered serious incidents and Police are not interested investigating them, so maybe this way I gets best chance of police attention. 

[Verbout]

5 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Surprisingly, cyclists are allowed to drive wrong way if it is one way street. They are completely uncontrolled menace in London, dangerous for the pedestrians and for themselves. Completely not rules applies to them and if any rule actually applies it is not enforced. Hopefully, the new amendment going to come in force for them to wear "high-wiz", but even then it is not exactly clear who will enforce it. I am fine with people riding on the roads, but then they must adhere to to rules and their gear should be somehow regulated..

I was hit once in the back when trying to cross the one way street - I came to pedestrian crossing and it was red, but is was late evening and not many cars, so I looked if there are any cars only one way.... because hey that is one way street, stepped into the road and was hit by cyclists to the back... Luckily not injuries. The cyclist didn't even stop and said something like "look where you going"... I was kind of shocked so didn't realised what to do before it was too late (cyclist disappeared in the dark). Few minutes later I was furious, would have punch all of the c*** of of him....

Few month ago was during morning peak was hit by cyclist again crossing the massive tower bridge crossroad (hate design of it) on pedestrian crossing and walking trough the green. Cyclist tried to jump red lights between the trucks and obviously had not clue what is around him. Was riding sort of track bike, with something which looked like a brakes, but on those skinny tires there was no way he could stop it... again no injuries, but no apologies either.

Finally, few weeks ago nearly run over one on roundabout in the evening. It was like 8 PM, but it is getting very dark already and cyclist was same as in @dutchie01situation, completely black, without any lights, black bike, black backpack... and clearly without any brains.. There are street light around outside of the 3 lanes roundabout, but he was crossing it straight troughs the middle, would he have crossed it by the edge maybe street lights would have illuminated him a bit, but now he was literally like ghost coming out of the dark. Few seconds later and I would have run him over, but cut past him maybe 2 meters in front. No way I could have seen him and just realised when he almost ride into my door.

@Verbout- I believe that definition it is what they call "plain language" explanation, not necessary legally correct. But it suited my situation better than "road accident", so I used the report which for me seems to be more appropriate. Furthermore, from my experience "hit and run" are no longer considered serious incidents and Police are not interested investigating them, so maybe this way I gets best chance of police attention. 

I can assure you Linas when I opine on this forum regarding law it’s correct, I did 30 years as a Police Officer and have several legal qualifications.   :)

[Linas.P]

3 hours ago, Verbout said:

I can assure you Linas when I opine on this forum regarding law it’s correct, I did 30 years as a Police Officer and have several legal qualifications.   :)

I didn't argue with that, text is copied from Met website, not something I have invented. I know that criminal damage definition is not exactly that, but it was sufficient for me to use this specific report over "road accident" one, based on description.

[Linas.P]

Today received call from police to come and make a statement. So statement is submitted and now it is just a wait. There are no surprises - I was told it would be unlikely the case would reach the court if suspect would plead not guilty... and that is most likely to happen. I was told it would be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt who was driving the moped or that the mirror was damage in result of rider hitting it... no surprises again, that is how strangely law work in UK - you can hit something without damage, as well you can own and insure moped, but you might not be driving it and obviously you don't know who does.... 

Side note - called Lexus for a quote. Mirror unit is £665.28 + £160 fitting... forgotten to check if that is including VAT 

[Mark G]

I think you are over analysing it, from what you have said the rider is a short tempered pri@k, who spends more time concentrating on altering his number plate than his riding skills, he will upset someone that has a little less tolerance than you. Getting dragged off your bike by the chinpiece of your crash helmet is not a pleasant experience............................

[Guest]

Especially if it's an open face one :D

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

[Linas.P]

I might be over analysing, but the reason I made this post is because this is "common occurrence" in my experience.

He definitely is some sort of "nut", but the reason he did it is (1) he feels that he have a right smash mirrors of car he doesn't like a.k.a. above the car drivers (2) he is not afraid to be caught or punished. He did not wait for me to react or pull him of the bike (quite unlikely I would do it in this country) and as I was stuck in traffic he pretty much acted like a coward - hit a mirror and quickly got away.

[Mark G]

9 minutes ago, Comedian said:

Especially if it's an open face one :D

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk
 

Ohhhhh even better..............................

[Guest]

Sympathise with you - but law and order, anti-social behaviour, lack of respect is a very big topic. My solution is to not live in a city. When people move this way from darn sarf they all say how friendly it is. There are still ****ers but the density is less.

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

[doog442]

On 13/11/2017 at 12:16 PM, Linas.P said:

Surprisingly, cyclists are allowed to drive wrong way if it is one way street. They are completely uncontrolled menace in London, dangerous for the pedestrians and for themselves. Completely not rules applies to them and if any rule actually applies it is not enforced. Hopefully, the new amendment going to come in force for them to wear "high-wiz", but even then it is not exactly clear who will enforce it. I am fine with people riding on the roads, but then they must adhere to to rules and their gear should be somehow regulated..

I was hit once in the back when trying to cross the one way street - I came to pedestrian crossing and it was red, but is was late evening and not many cars, so I looked if there are any cars only one way.... because hey that is one way street, stepped into the road and was hit by cyclists to the back... Luckily not injuries. The cyclist didn't even stop and said something like "look where you going"... I was kind of shocked so didn't realised what to do before it was too late (cyclist disappeared in the dark). Few minutes later I was furious, would have punch all of the c*** of of him....

Few month ago was during morning peak was hit by cyclist again crossing the massive tower bridge crossroad (hate design of it) on pedestrian crossing and walking trough the green. Cyclist tried to jump red lights between the trucks and obviously had not clue what is around him. Was riding sort of track bike, with something which looked like a brakes, but on those skinny tires there was no way he could stop it... again no injuries, but no apologies either.

 

It sounds like you need to get a better grasp of your surroundings. In other words fess up.

Cyclists dont have the luxury of being surrounded by a ton of  Lexus metal, that aside visit a few other European Cities and you will realise its pretty damned good here/ - I accept there are some muppets but 99% are normal law abiding folk.

As a pedestrian should you wear High viz ?..should cars be high viz ? . I don't get this 'gear 'regulation thing you mention

 

 

 

 

[Linas.P]

Not really sure what you are about. Indeed cyclist have no luxury of protection, therefore they should not be mixed-up in meat mincing traffic navigating between tons of metal going at high speeds! If you don't have luxury of protection don't dive in the sea full of sharks - what you are trying to say is that we need to persuade sharks to be more "careful"... No that is not how it works.... Cyclists needs to get gasp of driver visibility and car dynamics i.e. that car cannot stop here and now and understand that they are invisible... literally. Drivers go troughs training to get a license and to understand the rules and hazards, but any fool can cycle anyway they like. Actually, I seen study comparing cyclist who have car license and the ones who don't - cyclist with car license are 80% less likely to be involved in road accident and 37% less likely to be killed in event of accident. Even if cyclists wears high viz, they are barely visible - obviously better than nothing, but not ideal. Cars follows the rules, they have regulated headlights, stop lights, indicators and they do not filter between the lines and other cars, nor they come from nowhere, nor they (mostly) ignore the red lights.

I have visited many European cities, I have spend more of my life in other EU states then I did in UK... and UK by far is officially the worst in terms of congestion and traffic. People make comparisons with Copenhagen and Amsterdam... both are villages when compared with London. London is 10 times bigger and what works there doesn't work here. Now London is not the rest of UK, some cities might be worse some might be better and I am sure smaller towns are better, but it is pretty mental in London.

Pedestrians with high viz.. hell yes! I came from country where it is legal requirement to wear light reflectors in the dark... for pedestrians.. and where jay walking is illegal and you can be fined for doing so. Where cyclist are required to wear high viz and where drink drive for cyclists are equally enforced with same penalties like for the cars... Where drivers must wear high viz if stopped on road side at night... That for me is just common sense - to protect myself by being visible, but it seems that common sense is as usual not so common! Does car need to be high viz.. yes it is already! The only problem is that drivers are not required to turn the lights On during the day like in other EU countries, still even without lights they are much more visible and at least have light reflectors.

Just today I have seen 4 cyclists wearing completely dark clothes in darkens and rain, only one of them had flashing light in front, but nothing from the rear. Two were wearing black and the third one had dark grey trench coat.. even worse than black. 99% law abiding folk... maybe you are talking about different country. I have definitely seen few law abiding cyclist ... and that is about exactly 4 over 9 years I am living here. Today one cyclist was filtering traffic between 2nd and 3rd lanes on A13, he was wearing reflecting gear, but that was still completely inappropriate place for him to be, not to mention that there is 2 lane cyclist highway just on the side of A13 (see below). Why people choose to do so is still beyond me and just good example how they are taking unnecessary risks:

Finally, I see no relation between biker deliberately hitting my mirror and myself "getting gasp of my surroundings". Are you trying to say - he has a right to be angry and damage the car because he doesn't have 2 tons of metal protecting him? Well that is then exactly the "public opinion" I am talking about here - car drivers can be attacked "because they have protection" and other road users don't. That is what they call "vulnerable road users" and what is a total non-sense. I remember when I was small child my father explained me the rules on pedestrian crossing, he said - "you have a right to cross it and car drivers have to stop, but if they won't to whom it will hurt more? to you! car driver might be at fault, they might pay fine, they might be jailed, but you will be the one dead and that is if you lucky, because otherwise you spend your life in the wheelchair or eating through the straw." Point taken - no metal protection means that you are the one to look around and make sure it is safe before putting responsibility on others. In short - people are vulnerable because they put themselves in vulnerable situation and chooses to be "vulnerable"... ok maybe sometime government chooses to make them vulnerable, but that is still not drivers fault that we are not vulnerable, that doesn't make us responsible for all vulnerable people goverment chooses to throw on the battlefield. 

[Linas.P]

The above post might make a wrong impression - I do care about other road users and try to drive in the way which is safe for everyone. What I hate is when those "vulnerable road users" use their "vulnerable" status as a leverage to attack and you and disregard your rights or disregard their own responsibilities.