# Shocking CCTV of a cyclist being pushed



## DWiggy (25 Aug 2015)




----------



## Dommo (25 Aug 2015)

Saw that on the Guardian...Plenty of face-time on the camera there for an ID so you'd hope he gets found.


----------



## TissoT (25 Aug 2015)

He`s a hard chap striking/picking on a female ...


----------



## DWiggy (25 Aug 2015)

..hope it doesn't put her off cycling.


----------



## raleighnut (25 Aug 2015)

Hope they catch the little scrote.


----------



## TissoT (25 Aug 2015)

I hope she has a husband/brother who`s 6"3


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Aug 2015)

This scumbag chased after and violently pushed a woman off her bike for daring to speak to him.







Any info to police on 101 quoting images 180410 or call Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

Video can be seen here at the foot of the page.

GC


----------



## Dommo (25 Aug 2015)

tissot said:


> I hope she has a husband/brother who`s 6"3



I know what you mean, but size isn't everything. If they find him a bit of Polonium into his can of Tennents super whilst he's in the bookies would do the job 

It's actually number two trending article on the Graun at the moment so a lot of people are going to see it. It seems unlikely he's not going to get identified. As to whether anything is done is another question...


----------



## Bazzer (25 Aug 2015)

On the Beeb web site too. Hopefully more coverage will catch the tw@t.


----------



## numbnuts (25 Aug 2015)

He needs a good smacking


----------



## TissoT (25 Aug 2015)

Dommo said:


> I know what you mean, but size isn't everything. If they find him a bit of Polonium into his can of Tennents super whilst he's in the bookies would do the job
> 
> It's actually number two trending article on the Graun at the moment so a lot of people are going to see it. It seems unlikely he's not going to get identified. As to whether anything is done is another question...


 Just a figure of speech .. I didn't think there is enough intelligence to see him in a bookies


----------



## Milkfloat (25 Aug 2015)

It sounds like she may have flipped him the bird, or was it just that she raised a finger?


----------



## MikeD111 (25 Aug 2015)

Lets hope the storm we are due brings lightning and a bolt runs through this guys head!


----------



## jefmcg (25 Aug 2015)

Guardian has a nice still






Pedants point - why are the police (and this thread) saying "CCTV"? It's not.


----------



## Plax (25 Aug 2015)

I have no sound at work, but didn't she nearly run him over on a pedestrian crossing and then shake her head at him?


----------



## vickster (25 Aug 2015)

What a delightful creature...not


----------



## vickster (25 Aug 2015)

Plax said:


> I have no sound at work, but didn't she nearly run him over on a pedestrian crossing and then shake her head at him?


There was no pedestrian crossing, maybe an island. He may or may not have stepped off the kerb before she was passing. Either way it's not really an excuse for assaulting her!


----------



## ianrauk (25 Aug 2015)

Plax said:


> I have no sound at work, but didn't she nearly run him over on a pedestrian crossing and then shake her head at him?




At the beginning she says to the man, quite calmly. Please don't try and knock me off.
He then runs up to her shouting "C'mon then you c***, You want to stick your finger up at me, you mug?"


----------



## Plax (25 Aug 2015)

ianrauk said:


> At the beginning she says to the man, quite calmly. Please don't try and knock me off.
> He then runs up to her shouting "C'mon then you c***, You want to stick your finger up at me, you mug?"



Why would she say that to him as he is trying to cross the road though? I'm not condoning his actions, they are terrible but she has clearly done something to provoke him.


----------



## vickster (25 Aug 2015)

Maybe he took a swing at her off camera?


----------



## ianrauk (25 Aug 2015)

Plax said:


> Why would she say that to him as he is trying to cross the road though? I'm not condoning his actions, they are terrible but she has clearly done something to provoke him.




Unfortunately we can't see what may have happened as the man moves into the cameras blind spot.


----------



## Drago (25 Aug 2015)

What chump. I'll happily dress up as a female and ride around that area, see if he'll try his luck with me


----------



## Andrew_P (25 Aug 2015)

Some right loose cannons bumping around in the world. Be nice when the plod catch up. I do wonder if the reaction would have been the same had it been a male cycling, doubt it. What the hell is the thought process, beyond even thinking about really.


----------



## Andrew_P (25 Aug 2015)

Drago said:


> What chump. I'll happily dress up as a female and ride around that area, see if he'll try his luck with me


Will you be wearing your stab vest?


----------



## Drago (25 Aug 2015)

No, blouse and short skirt.


----------



## cd365 (25 Aug 2015)

Drago said:


> No, blouse and short skirt.


Your usual Saturday attire?


----------



## jefmcg (25 Aug 2015)

Plax said:


> Why would she say that to him as he is trying to cross the road though? I'm not condoning his actions, they are terrible but she has clearly done something to provoke him.


If you watch the video, he is stepping out right into her path, as if she wasn't there. He doesn't seem to slow down at all. 

Also, she felt his actions were aggressive, and subsequent footage shows that she was right.

BTW, can we cut out the patronising crap in this thread? There is no evidence that he only attacked her because she was a woman, and I don't think the crime is worse because she is female.


----------



## Hip Priest (25 Aug 2015)

I thought this thread was going to be about Nibali.


----------



## Drago (25 Aug 2015)

cd365 said:


> Your usual Saturday attire?



Yep, and the heels too.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Aug 2015)

Drago said:


> What chump. I'll happily dress up as a female and ride around that area, see if he'll try his luck with me



At least try shaving this time...










GC


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (25 Aug 2015)

Plax said:


> Why would she say that to him as he is trying to cross the road though? I'm not condoning his actions, they are terrible but she has clearly done something to provoke him.



Of course she has. Nice victim blaming there.


----------



## blazed (25 Aug 2015)

Anytime I've stuck my fingers up at someone I'm prepared for the potential sh*t afterwards. 

His actions obviously weren't justified but what is she expecting, in a dump like Whitechapel, sticking her fingers up at someone.


----------



## Hip Priest (25 Aug 2015)

It troubles me that so many people are walking round with a hair trigger temper, ready to explode at any trivial slight.


----------



## jefmcg (25 Aug 2015)

blazed said:


> Anytime I've stuck my fingers up at someone I'm prepared for the potential sh*t afterwards.
> 
> His actions obviously weren't justified but what is she expecting, in a dump like Whitechapel, sticking her fingers up at someone.


Her voice is so mild when she rebukes him, that I doubt she is making an obscene gesture. I could easily imagine it being a forefinger raised as a non verbal request for him to halt. It's really impossible to tell.

Of course, he could step forward and give his side of the story, if he likes....


----------



## Hip Priest (25 Aug 2015)

ABikeCam said:


> Of course she has. Nice victim blaming there.



'Victim blaming' is just a phrase used to shut down free discussion. Disgusting as the assailant's actions were, I have no idea why the rider felt the need to open a dialogue with him in the first place. She was the aggressor, he just escalated it to an insane degree.


----------



## Spinney (25 Aug 2015)

Was she the aggressor? It could be that he was crossing the road as she was approaching and came too close to her bike, when she said 'please don't push me off'. That's all we know. How does that make _her_ the aggressor?


----------



## jefmcg (25 Aug 2015)

jefmcg said:


> Her voice is so mild when she rebukes him, that I doubt she is making an obscene gesture. I could easily imagine it being a forefinger raised as a non verbal request for him to halt. It's really impossible to tell.


Ok, I've had another watch/listen.

He steps right in front of her as if she wasn't there. She says "Please don't knock me off" He comes back with "Shut up, you <garble>**" I reckon her finger goes up then, in the classic American style. He chases her, knocks her down and abuses her. 
I think it's a matter of opinion who started it. Personally, I'm on her side. But if I was going to give the finger to someone I thought was going to knock me down, I'd make sure I had a getaway route available.

** I can guess what the garbled word was.


----------



## Hip Priest (25 Aug 2015)

Spinney said:


> Was she the aggressor? It could be that he was crossing the road as she was approaching and came too close to her bike, when she said 'please don't push me off'. That's all we know. How does that make _her_ the aggressor?



Because he was just crossing the road and she accused him of trying to push her off. If she'd said 'excuse me' or 'look out' it'd have been understandable.

The bloke obviously has a very sensitive ego and took umbrage at a snooty woman telling him off for something he hadn't done.


----------



## jefmcg (25 Aug 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> Because he was just crossing the road and she accused him of trying to push her off. If she'd said 'excuse me' or 'look out' it'd have been understandable.
> 
> The bloke obviously has a very sensitive ego and took umbrage at a snooty woman telling him off for something he hadn't done.


I don't think most people would push over a cyclist, even if they were angry. She thought he was going to push her over, and then he did push her over. Makes the original fear justified, if you ask me.


----------



## Hip Priest (25 Aug 2015)

jefmcg said:


> I don't think most people would push over a cyclist, even if they were angry. She thought he was going to push her over, and then he did push her over. Makes the original fear justified, if you ask me.



Of course most people wouldn't push a cyclist over. It's inexcusable. Where have I suggested otherwise?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Aug 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> she accused him of trying to push her off.



She didn't



Hip Priest said:


> If she'd said 'excuse me' or 'look out' it'd have been understandable.



She prefixed her request with 'please'.

I'm glad I don't live in a city where that's seen as being aggressive.


GC


----------



## Hip Priest (25 Aug 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> She didn't
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the please was sarcastic. If someone was trying to cross the road why would you say "please don't try and knock me off?" and then give them the finger unless you were initiating a confrontation?


----------



## jefmcg (25 Aug 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> Of course most people wouldn't push a cyclist over. It's inexcusable. Where have I suggested otherwise?


Sorry, you misunderstood me. I wasn't accusing you!

You felt her accusation was uncalled for. I am thinking one can't really read body language from a video like this. She felt he was inclined to knock her down. Then he did knock her down. That - to me - makes the original "accusation" not a random, unjustified statement, but was her correctly reading his intentions.


----------



## Hitchington (25 Aug 2015)

Looks to me like common assault. The bloke is a violent dick and whatever the provocation (in this case it was the meekest and mildest, IF it even was a provocation, which imo it wasn't) his action isn't justified.


----------



## Spinney (25 Aug 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> Because he was just crossing the road and she accused him of trying to push her off. If she'd said 'excuse me' or 'look out' it'd have been understandable.
> 
> The bloke obviously has a very sensitive ego and took umbrage at a snooty woman telling him off for something he hadn't done.


We don't know how close he actually came. The bike wobbles to the left (away from the pedestrian) as she starts to talk. It is said in a calm voice, preceded by 'please'. I don't see how that can be regarded as aggressive in any way.


----------



## Hip Priest (25 Aug 2015)

jefmcg said:


> Sorry, you misunderstood me. I wasn't accusing you!



My bad.



> You felt her accusation was uncalled for. I am thinking you can't really read body language from a video like this. She felt he was inclined to knock her down. Then he did knock her down. That - to me - makes the original "accusation" not a random, unjustified statement, but was her correctly reading his intentions.



I don't how she saw that coming. The only possible suggestion I can think of is that something has occurred off camera, or he has motioned aggressively towards her on a previous occasion.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Aug 2015)

I'm also wondering about the three month delay in broadcasting this in the search for witnesses; is this a common delay for the Met?

GC


----------



## jefmcg (25 Aug 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> I think the please was sarcastic. If someone was trying to cross the road why would you say "please don't try and knock me off?" and then give them the finger unless you were initiating a confrontation?



I use my voice as a **siren. What I say depends on how long I have to formulate a response. If it is a car pulling out suddenly it tends to be "jesus farking christ" (old Catholic background catches up in moments of extremis). If it's a pedestrian who hasn't seen me, it's most likely to be an angry "Look out!", followed by apology/thanks/explanation as appropriate once evasive action has been completed. I don't think you can hold her to account over her choice of words, or call it sarcasm. 

And as I said above, I'm sure the finger is raised after he told her to shut up, and used middle english.


**I don't need an airzound, my voice is loud enough to cox an eight over the sound of a coaches launch without amplification.


----------



## Hip Priest (25 Aug 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I'm also wondering about the three month delay in broadcasting this in the search for witnesses; is this a common delay for the Met?
> 
> GC



Maybe the victim didn't report it initially.


----------



## jefmcg (25 Aug 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I'm also wondering about the three month delay in broadcasting this in the search for witnesses; is this a common delay for the Met?
> 
> GC


I'm assuming this was her delay. Not based on anything.

Edit: TMN to @Hip Priest


----------



## Hip Priest (25 Aug 2015)

Spinney said:


> We don't know how close he actually came. The bike wobbles to the left (away from the pedestrian) as she starts to talk. It is said in a calm voice, preceded by 'please'. I don't see how that can be regarded as aggressive in any way.



To use an analogy, if a car passed me closely, and I said "please don't try to kill me", I wouldn't be making a polite request, I'd be sarcastically critiquing his driving,


----------



## Spinney (25 Aug 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> To use an analogy, if a car passed me closely, and I said "please don't try to kill me", I wouldn't be making a polite request, I'd be sarcastically critiquing his driving,


The tone didn't sound sarcastic to me. And sarcasm isn't agreesion.

In any case, I think we are agreed that whatever she said, even if she subsequently gave him the finger as a result of him swearing at her, there is no possible justification for what he did. I don't see any point in discussing exactly what happened further as we've got as much as we can (you, me and others on this thread) from the video.


----------



## Tail End Charlie (25 Aug 2015)

Why is it that dicks like him always put their arms out to the side when being aggressive? 
I wonder if anyone stopped to help her?


----------



## discominer (25 Aug 2015)

4 x 4 gives me a very close pass, revving hard. I give the two fingers to show I know the urban myth about Agincourt. He stops, gets out, stops me passing on the right, blocking traffic. I try to go round, saying nothing, he behaves exactly like the thug in the vid. My fault?


----------



## Lurpak (25 Aug 2015)

The Prodigy did this ages ago.


----------



## Hip Priest (25 Aug 2015)

discominer said:


> 4 x 4 gives me a very close pass, revving hard. I give the two fingers to show I know the urban myth about Agincourt. He stops, gets out, stops me passing on the right, blocking traffic. I try to go round, saying nothing, he behaves exactly like the thug in the vid. My fault?



Not really a fair analogy. The pedestrian is the more vulnerable road user in the OP, whereas you're the vulnerable road user in your incident.


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Aug 2015)

Not sure where I got this wrong but I thought that if I'm cycling along and there's no stop line, red light, or other crossing, any pedestrians wanting to cross have to look and wait for it to be safe to cross, i.e. they let me pass before crossing. When did this change?


----------



## Lonestar (25 Aug 2015)

Davidsw8 said:


> Not sure where I got this wrong but I thought that if I'm cycling along and there's no stop line, red light, or other crossing, any pedestrians wanting to cross have to look and wait for it to be safe to cross, i.e. they let me pass before crossing. When did this change?



A long time ago in the Cannon Street area.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (25 Aug 2015)

discominer said:


> My fault?



Were you riding a bicycle? Then yes.

GC


----------



## Brandane (25 Aug 2015)

Just been on Sky News. Can't get much better coverage than that!


----------



## ianrauk (25 Aug 2015)

Brandane said:


> Just been on Sky News. Can't get much better coverage than that!




Seems to be everywhere.


----------



## slowmotion (25 Aug 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...clist-into-london-traffic-metropolitan-police


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (25 Aug 2015)

tissot said:


> He`s a hard chap striking/picking on a female ...


What difference does it make if she's female?


----------



## jefmcg (25 Aug 2015)

slowmotion said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...clist-into-london-traffic-metropolitan-police


In case people don't click the link
*Man who pushed cyclist into path of traffic turns himself in to police*


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (25 Aug 2015)

Tail End Charlie said:


> Why is it that dicks like him always put their arms out to the side when being aggressive?



makes it easier to give them a punch they can't defend


----------



## Dark46 (25 Aug 2015)

Jesus this guy needs locking up...


----------



## Crandoggler (25 Aug 2015)

Wonder why he wasn't arrested.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (25 Aug 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> I think the please was sarcastic. If someone was trying to cross the road why would you say "please don't try and knock me off?" and then give them the finger unless you were initiating a confrontation?



Lets say IF she did cause the confrontation, IF she was being sarcastic.

In no way, was his response reasonable, or justified. If he replied with just the verbal abuse in the video, that is 1 thing, but the assault is way over the line for somebody "shouting" at you.

It is a guy, that thinks he's tough trying to show his dominance.


----------



## buggi (25 Aug 2015)

I'm seeing a worrying amount of this sort of violence against women doing the rounds on the internet. The other day a guy walked up to a group of girls (all filmed by his dumbass mates) and he singled one girl out to talk to. When she refused his advances and tried to walk around him, he punched her straight in the face and knocked her down. When she tried to get up and run away, he put the boot in. His mates were clearly enjoying the show.


----------



## Hip Priest (25 Aug 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Lets say IF she did cause the confrontation, IF she was being sarcastic.
> 
> In no way, was his response reasonable, or justified. If he replied with just the verbal abuse in the video, that is 1 thing, but the assault is way over the line for somebody "shouting" at you.



I know. I said exactly the same myself.


----------



## Drago (25 Aug 2015)

According to the CtCs farcebook page this guy has handed himself onto the feds.


----------



## Hip Priest (25 Aug 2015)

See he's handed himself in. A charge of common assault awaits.


----------



## Davidsw8 (25 Aug 2015)

He said he's had death threats, must be awful to be victimised by morons...


----------



## ianrauk (25 Aug 2015)

Diddums....


----------



## Drago (25 Aug 2015)

Listen carefully...

You can hear me not crying for him.


----------



## CopperCyclist (25 Aug 2015)

Crandoggler said:


> Wonder why he wasn't arrested.



Because since PACE was changed some time ago, it would have possibly been illegal. Every arrest has to be justified with a 'necessity' reason. When someone turns up, willing to be voluntarily interviewed about their offence, this can often remove most of those necessities. 

In the end, it's all the same - he's interviewed, same evidence gathered, same charge applied.


----------



## Dommo (26 Aug 2015)

Drago said:


> According to the CtCs farcebook page this guy has handed himself onto the feds.



He went all the way to the US?


----------



## JamesMayesUK (26 Aug 2015)

Even if she did put a finger up at him there's still no excuse for assaulting her (OR ANYONE). I do however think he should have been ignored to prevent any escalation of the incident which led to her being assaulted (still, no excuse for assaulting her in the first place). 

Youtube link dead, found the video here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1208731/Shocking-CCTV-cyclist-pushed-bike-traffic.html


----------



## J1888 (26 Aug 2015)

I'd be interested to know how he's received death threats - surely his name isn't in the public domain? Or is he talking about people on YouTube commenting on someone who is hitherto anonymous?

Either way, I wish the very worst in life for the cretin


----------



## JamesMayesUK (26 Aug 2015)

J1888 said:


> I'd be interested to know how he's received death threats - surely his name isn't in the public domain? Or is he talking about people on YouTube commenting on someone who is hitherto anonymous?
> 
> Either way, I wish the very worst in life for the cretin


Someone who knows who he is has probably told someone, it probably spread around where he lives especially with all the media attention.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (26 Aug 2015)

Are we taking bets on his defence lawyer's explanation to the court (assuming he's convicted)?

I'm going for the "moment of madness" angle, possibly with some underlying stress in his life.
farkwit.


GC


----------



## thefollen (26 Aug 2015)

Awful bloke and his reaction is very unnecessary, but I almost feel sorry for him with the internet mauling he's received. Almost.

Trial by internet is brutal and unfortunate. In my view it's overly harsh- there are far worse things that go on without this coverage.

Still, on a positive I'm certain he and anyone else whose instinct is to act in a similar way may think twice in future.


----------



## Drago (26 Aug 2015)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Are we taking bets on his defence lawyer's explanation to the court (assuming he's convicted)?
> 
> I'm going for the "moment of madness" angle, possibly with some underlying stress in his life.
> farkwit.
> ...



Ooh yes. Can I go with "is deeply remorseful and has turned his life around since the incident and is now actively seeking work."


----------



## Hip Priest (26 Aug 2015)

thefollen said:


> Awful bloke and his reaction is very unnecessary, but I almost feel sorry for him with the internet mauling he's received. Almost.
> 
> Trial by internet is brutal and unfortunate. In my view it's overly harsh- there are far worse things that go on without this coverage.
> 
> Still, on a positive I'm certain he and anyone else whose instinct is to act in a similar way may think twice in future.



I agree. But without it being shared, it's unlikely he'd have been brought to justice.


----------



## e-rider (26 Aug 2015)

His face has the usual signs of a drug user which might go some way to explaining his terrible behaviour


----------



## Plax (26 Aug 2015)

ABikeCam said:


> Of course she has. Nice victim blaming there.



a) Yes he crossed the road on a red light (it is a pedestrian crossing). Bad man.
b) In the video you can clearly see him starting the cross the road WITH HIS HANDS IN HIS POCKETS. He was nearly half way across the road at the time of the altercation. Even though he is in the wrong she could have cycled more defensively - slowed to accommodate him and maybe even gone round the back rather than cut across the front of him.
c) There was absolutely no need for her to say what she did. Maybe he took his hands out of his pockets quickly thinking she was going to cycle into him and was naturally trying to "defend" from injury and she mistook this for him attempting to push her off. Who knows, but when I listened to the video when I got home I thought her tone was slightly confrontational/condescending.
e) If she did give him the finger she should have made sure she could pedal faster than he could run. Also if you've already decided that someone is a potential threat why the hell would you antagonise them further?!

He was 100% in the wrong to do what he did, but she didn't exactly behave impeccably herself. If that's victim blaming so be it.


----------



## Drago (26 Aug 2015)

This is why I always preach that it ain't worth making rude signs, gobbing off or even acknowledging chumps. You've nothing whatsoever to gain, and anything that then happens as a consequence inevitably falls on the negative side of the balance sheet.


----------



## Poacher (26 Aug 2015)

Plax said:


> a) Yes he crossed the road on a red light (it is a pedestrian crossing). Bad man.
> b) In the video you can clearly see him starting the cross the road WITH HIS HANDS IN HIS POCKETS. He was nearly half way across the road at the time of the altercation. Even though he is in the wrong she could have cycled more defensively - slowed to accommodate him and maybe even gone round the back rather than cut across the front of him.
> c) There was absolutely no need for her to say what she did. Maybe he took his hands out of his pockets quickly thinking she was going to cycle into him and was naturally trying to "defend" from injury and she mistook this for him attempting to push her off. Who knows, but when I listened to the video when I got home I thought her tone was slightly confrontational/condescending.
> e) If she did give him the finger she should have made sure she could pedal faster than he could run. Also if you've already decided that someone is a potential threat why the hell would you antagonise them further?!
> ...


d) ?????


----------



## Hip Priest (26 Aug 2015)

Drago said:


> This is why I always preach that it ain't worth making rude signs, gobbing off or even acknowledging chumps. You've nothing whatsoever to gain, and anything that then happens as a consequence inevitably falls on the negative side of the balance sheet.



Happened to me this morning. A driver flashed me out of a t-junction, so I pulled out, but there was traffic from the left, so I had to stop. A driver who was briefly held up by this called me a 'tosser' as he drove off. I resisted the urge to return the insult or chase him down to argue the toss, and as a result, I'd pretty much forgotten about it by the time I got to work.


----------



## Drago (26 Aug 2015)

D. He had is nob out and was doing the Elephant Walk?


----------



## Plax (26 Aug 2015)

Poacher said:


> d) ?????



Just checking to see if anyone was still awake


----------



## J1888 (26 Aug 2015)

Drago said:


> Ooh yes. Can I go with "is deeply remorseful and has turned his life around since the incident and is *now actively seeking work*."



What has his employment status got to do with the price of bread?


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (26 Aug 2015)

Plax said:


> a) Yes he crossed the road on a red light (it is a pedestrian crossing). Bad man.
> b) In the video you can clearly see him starting the cross the road WITH HIS HANDS IN HIS POCKETS. He was nearly half way across the road at the time of the altercation. Even though he is in the wrong she could have cycled more defensively - slowed to accommodate him and maybe even gone round the back rather than cut across the front of him.
> c) There was absolutely no need for her to say what she did. Maybe he took his hands out of his pockets quickly thinking she was going to cycle into him and was naturally trying to "defend" from injury and she mistook this for him attempting to push her off. Who knows, but when I listened to the video when I got home I thought her tone was slightly confrontational/condescending.
> e) If she did give him the finger she should have made sure she could pedal faster than he could run. Also if you've already decided that someone is a potential threat why the hell would you antagonise them further?!
> ...



What's next? Don't make eye contact with anyone? Don't talk to yourself in case someone thinks you're having a go? Or maybe we should just give up, get in a car and drive everywhere?

Has anyone considered that "the finger" may have been the cyclist putting her hand out to indicate a left turn, and Mr. Shortfuse took it the wrong way? The number of people on here saying "Yeah, it's his fault but she's not exactly blameless" is incredible.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (26 Aug 2015)

J1888 said:


> What has his employment status got to do with the price of bread?



I think you missed the humour in the comment


----------



## Plax (26 Aug 2015)

ABikeCam said:


> What's next? Don't make eye contact with anyone? Don't talk to yourself in case someone thinks you're having a go? Or maybe we should just give up, get in a car and drive everywhere?
> 
> Has anyone considered that "the finger" may have been the cyclist putting her hand out to indicate a left turn, and Mr. Shortfuse took it the wrong way? The number of people on here saying "Yeah, it's his fault but she's not exactly blameless" is incredible.



Incredible but true.
EDIT - don't think getting in a car and driving everywhere is any better. A tosser is a tosser is a tosser, doesn't matter what mode of transport they use or interact with.
EDIT 2 - I'm not calling the cyclist a tosser in case you're about to get a stick up your bum about that.


----------



## Hip Priest (26 Aug 2015)

People like to throw emotive terms around. She was not to blame for the assault. Nobody is saying she is. But like it or not, the world is full of hair-trigger idiots like this guy and if you go round telling people off you'll eventually find one of them.


----------



## Drago (26 Aug 2015)

J1888 said:


> What has his employment status got to do with the price of bread?



Because that's the sort of drivel I regularly hear trotted out in Court as mitigation for similar acts.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (26 Aug 2015)

Drago said:


> Because that's the sort of drivel I regularly hear trotted out in Court as mitigation for similar acts.


Surely the magistrates must here this multiple times per day. Do they really buy it?


----------



## cd365 (26 Aug 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> People like to throw emotive terms around. She was not to blame for the assault. Nobody is saying she is. But like it or not, the world is full of hair-trigger idiots like this guy and if you go round telling people off you'll eventually find one of them.


So cyclists should ride around meekly just in case there is an idiot out there?
This "trial by internet" thing I am really starting to like, you do something illegal like assault, drive with undue care & consideration etc. and you should be prepared, in this selfie world now, for someone to be filming. Maybe the more it happens the more people will think twice. The c0ck in this video assaulted a woman and is now receiving threats, poetic justice I think. If someone ran up to him now, pushed him over and shouted "come on then" would he be so brave? Somehow I doubt it!


----------



## Drago (26 Aug 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Surely the magistrates must here this multiple times per day. Do they really buy it?



Yes, very often, unfortunately.


----------



## Hip Priest (26 Aug 2015)

cd365 said:


> So cyclists should ride around meekly just in case there is an idiot out there?



It's not about being meek, it's about avoiding getting into confrontations over minor issues. Sometimes it may be appropriate to engage with another road user, but most of the time it's pointless.


----------



## cd365 (26 Aug 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> It's not about being meek, it's about avoiding getting into confrontations over minor issues. Sometimes it may be appropriate to engage with another road user, but *most of the time it's pointless*.


Agreed


----------



## J1888 (26 Aug 2015)

Drago said:


> Because that's the sort of drivel I regularly hear trotted out in Court as mitigation for similar acts.



To me, it sounds like you're saying that people who are unemployed are more likely to commit such violent acts, which of course would be complete nonsense.


----------



## Spinney (26 Aug 2015)

J1888 said:


> To me, it sounds like you're saying that people who are unemployed are more likely to commit such violent acts, which of course would be complete nonsense.


I read it as it says - that he hears that excuse brought out in court as a way of trying to mitigate a sentence. Nothing more or less. He didn't say _he_ thought or implied that. Whether or not the defense lawyers/magistrates believe it is a different matter, but not one that can be addressed here.


----------



## Pale Rider (26 Aug 2015)

Mitigation at court is inevitably samey, so you do hear the same phrases over and over again.

I recall a multi-handed case of street violence in which the barristers had a 'cliche sweep' in the robing room beforehand.

Among the phrase in the hat (wig) were:

A moment of madness, he's turned the corner, he is remorseful, his family are standing by him, he is determined to stop taking drugs/come of the drink, he is looking for work, he is volunteering for a charity.


----------



## Hip Priest (26 Aug 2015)

J1888 said:


> To me, it sounds like you're saying that people who are unemployed are more likely to commit such violent acts, which of course would be complete nonsense.



That's obviously not what Drago meant, but seeing as you brought it up, the unemployed *are* stastically more likely to commit criminal offences (both violent and non-violent) than the employed. So not complete nonsense after all.


----------



## Pale Rider (26 Aug 2015)

J1888 said:


> To me, it sounds like you're saying that people who are unemployed are more likely to commit such violent acts, which of course would be complete nonsense.



Get yourself to your local magistrates' court.

You will find 90 per cent of the defendants are unemployed young men aged between 19 and about 25.

In terms of deciding guilt or innocence, the defendant's work status is largely irrelevant.

But we are not talking about that, we are talking about mitigation - what can properly be said on behalf of the defendant after guilt has been decided.


----------



## Drago (26 Aug 2015)

J1888 said:


> To me, it sounds like you're saying that people who are unemployed are more likely to commit such violent acts, which of course would be complete nonsense.



Then you need your bumps feeling. Everyone else is interpreting it as intended.


----------



## Hip Priest (26 Aug 2015)

User13710 said:


> The minor issue here was being spoken to in a certain tone of voice. The punishment for using an unacceptable tone of voice was to be pursued, shouted at, and pushed over into the traffic. It's beyond me how anyone can apportion any blame at all to the woman here.



Me neither. Good job nobody is.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (26 Aug 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Get yourself to your local magistrates' court.
> 
> You will find 90 per cent of the defendants are unemployed young men aged between 19 and about 25.



In my young and stupid days, I got done in a magistrates court at 18 to 19 years old. Pled not guilty 3 times and case got delayed, so 4 times in 12 months in a magistrates court. From having nothing else to do other than listen to other peoples conversations, at the most, there was me and maybe 1 or 2 others in employment, the other 20 or so certainly weren't


----------



## Hip Priest (26 Aug 2015)

User13710 said:


> Oh come off it. I'm not alone in finding your line of argument here unacceptable. You might think she was a 'snooty woman' who contributed to her fate here and should have just scuttled off quietly, but many of us would disagree. If I had time I'd look out @User10119's excellent link about angry women, but I can't be arsed to argue with you at the moment.



If you want to argue with people who think she deserved to be assaulted then go to Twitter or the comments section of the Daily Mail. No such people appear on this thread.


----------



## Pale Rider (26 Aug 2015)

User13710 said:


> Oh come off it. I'm not alone in finding your line of argument here unacceptable. You might think she was a 'snooty woman' who contributed to her fate here and should have just scuttled off quietly, but many of us would disagree. If I had time I'd look out @User10119's excellent link about angry women, but I can't be arsed to argue with you at the moment.



Gender has nothing to do with it.

If one road user criticises another, he or she ought to be aware of what might follow.

As has been observed, many people - like the bloke in the video - seem to operate on a knife edge of civility.

Ignoring such people usually keeps you safe from harm.

It really is best not to offer road use tuition to strangers, although I have done it a couple of times with, thankfully, no nasty consequences.


----------



## Tin Pot (26 Aug 2015)

It's threads like these that actually make me glad there are twelve people in a jury. Ten people to cut through the crap and two to argue the toss.

As for liking trial by Internet. I, I just don't think that needs a response.


----------



## Andrew_P (26 Aug 2015)

User13710 said:


> The minor issue here was being spoken to in a certain tone of voice. The punishment for using an unacceptable tone of voice was to be pursued, shouted at, and pushed over into the traffic. It's beyond me how anyone can apportion any blame at all to the woman here.


He responded in a completely irrational and thug like way to getting the finger not to her request not to be knocked over (which I thought was a strange request all be it accurate later on!), one has to assume it was the middle finger. I cannot figure why she was feeling threatened with being knocked over in first place if I am honest, I have watched the beginning a few times and it is not clear. It look likes a temporary pedestrian crossing set up for roadwork's it also looks like he is crossing in-between moving cars and hasn't allowed for the cyclist and is caught between waiting for the cyclist to pass and making the silver car stop or walking in front of the cyclist. He doesn't look like he is about to push the cyclist at the point of crossing more like there is a dual going on over who will give way. 

And for the record I don't think she sounds snooty at all.


----------



## jonny jeez (26 Aug 2015)

JamesMayesUK said:


> Someone who knows who he is has probably told someone, it probably spread around where he lives especially with all the media attention.


And yet...not one of them felt it appropriate to identify him to the police.


----------



## Tin Pot (26 Aug 2015)

jefmcg said:


> BTW, can we cut out the patronising crap in this thread? There is no evidence that he only attacked her because she was a woman, and I don't think the crime is worse because she is female.



Absolutely not, the crime is worthy of greater repulsion because it is male on female violence. A man is far more likely to attack someone if they are female, than male.

The level of male on female violence in human society is absurd, virtually any opportunity to reiterate that men should not attack women is worth taking in my view.

Peer pressure is a cost free useful control to apply.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (26 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Absolutely not, the crime is worthy of greater repulsion because it is male on female violence. A man is far more likely to attack someone if they are female, than male.
> 
> The level of male on female violence in human society is absurd, virtually any opportunity to reiterate that men should not attack women is worth taking in my view.



I see why people believe this, but it does appear a little sexist. And don't see why gender should be relevant. From years of combat sports, I know from personal experience that females can hit just as hard, and harder than some males.

It's rare you see an attack on a person that can defend themselves, whether they are male or female. I know as many males as females who would be unable to defend themselves in a physical confrontation.

It shouldn't be down to their gender that makes this worse, but the fact it was an assault on a person who is unable to defend themselves.


----------



## Pale Rider (26 Aug 2015)

Leaving gender out of it, I despise the attacker for going after a person who he knows is almost certainly physically weaker.

Or to coin the old phrase: "Pick on someone your own size."


----------



## Andrew_P (26 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Absolutely not, the crime is worthy of greater repulsion because it is male on female violence. A man is far more likely to attack someone if they are female, than male.
> 
> The level of male on female violence in human society is absurd, virtually any opportunity to reiterate that men should not attack women is worth taking in my view.
> 
> Peer pressure is a cost free useful control to apply.


I would actually say that this sort of person has carried out an internal risk assessment of them getting hurt in a confrontation and came back as low. I have believed for some while that this plays a large part in cyclist confrontations in that the other party has a perception of cyclists being skinny, weak and nerdy and a soft target. I also believe that it is socially acceptable to hate cyclist/cycling and this follows though on their actions as well


----------



## Tin Pot (26 Aug 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I see why people believe this, but it does appear a little sexist. And don't see why gender should be relevant. From years of combat sports, I know from personal experience that females can hit just as hard, and harder than some males.
> 
> It's rare you see an attack on a person that can defend themselves, whether they are male or female. I know as many males as females who would be unable to defend themselves in a physical confrontation.
> 
> It shouldn't be down to their gender that makes this worse, but the fact it was an assault on a person who is unable to defend themselves.



I dont mind my view appearing to be sexist, because it isn't. Unless of course we are talking about the aggressor. Given two potential victims of the same size and weight a female is more likely to be attacked.

People have often confused themselves over equality, meaning, of the same value not, the same thing. Men and women are different. It is not sexist to say so, it is sexist to make value judgements and inflict prejudice because of someone's sex.

It shouldn't be relevant to gender, but until male on female violence even approaches male on male, it is.


----------



## User10119 (26 Aug 2015)

User13710 said:


> Oh come off it. I'm not alone in finding your line of argument here unacceptable. You might think she was a 'snooty woman' who contributed to her fate here and should have just scuttled off quietly, but many of us would disagree. If I had time I'd look out @User10119's excellent link about angry women, but I can't be arsed to argue with you at the moment.



This one? http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2012/04/mean-girls-feminism-the-internet-and-being-nice/


----------



## Drago (26 Aug 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> It's not about being meek, it's about avoiding getting into confrontations over minor issues. Sometimes it may be appropriate to engage with another road user, but most of the time it's pointless.



Absolutely, it's not about being meek. It's about being alive, being uninjured.


----------



## Tin Pot (26 Aug 2015)

[QUOTE 3873459, member: 10119"]This one? http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2012/04/mean-girls-feminism-the-internet-and-being-nice/[/QUOTE]

It's a fair point.

Dealing with other people's prejudice always seems easy, it's tackling you're own that is deceptively tricky.

I accept I have prejudices but try to counter or minimise their effect by questioning my words and actions fairly frequently. Too much and you just stress yourself out and lash out, and the whole exercise becomes counter productive!


----------



## Milkfloat (26 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> A man is far more likely to attack someone if they are female, than male.



Is this really true? The few years I worked 'a door' almost all violence was male on male. I find it hard to believe that domestic violence would make up the rest.


----------



## Tin Pot (26 Aug 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> Is this really true? *The few years I worked 'a door' almost all violence was male on male.* I find it hard to believe that domestic violence would make up the rest.



It does stand for further analysis, and we are hampered by what is reported - male on male rape may be far more prevalent than we'll ever know, perhaps.

We are also hampered by the variance of the impact, how do we measure the psychological impact of being attacked? It's hard to be objective. But it is generally accepted that for a given act of violence the impact is greater on a woman

But on what we have - reported events, impact and damage caused and so forth, then yes, it is really true.

Male on male aggression - and this is going to be tricky to argue I realise - is to some degree part of being human, and I'm referring specifically to your experience working doors. Men have a need to establish a pecking order, particularly in front of women - and backing down at a night club in front of potential mates will happen if two suitors, or groups of suitors, appear evenly matched. Alcohol doesn't help, but isn't truly the underlying cause, it's the accelerant.

A man involved in a street fight such as this is more likely to have a say in whether the fight actually occurs or not, and to be psychologically prepared for success or defeat. But that is not to say it's okay, we collectively don't want this to happen so we created laws against it, it is to differentiate it.

A good place to start, though fifty years old, is with _On Aggression_ by Konrad Lorenz:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/041...aggression&dpPl=1&dpID=51Oknk1f6fL&ref=plSrch

I read this around age 14, and infraspecies aggression immediately became part of my lexicon.


----------



## slowmotion (26 Aug 2015)

Whatever your gender, it's pretty difficult to defend yourself against attack if you are riding along on a bike. To me, that's why that attack was particularly despicable and cowardly. The fact that the victim was a woman compounds it, but that's just my personal view.


----------



## J1888 (26 Aug 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> That's obviously not what Drago meant, but seeing as you brought it up, the unemployed *are* stastically more likely to commit criminal offences (both *violent* and non-violent) than the employed. So not complete nonsense after all.



I'd be interested to see the data for that.


----------



## Hip Priest (26 Aug 2015)

J1888 said:


> I'd be interested to see the data for that.



Then search for 'crime statistics between employed and unemployed' and peruse the various studies to your hearts content.


----------



## Drago (26 Aug 2015)

J1888 said:


> I'd be interested to see the data for that.



Go visit your local Magistrates Court, see it for yourself.


----------



## Pale Rider (26 Aug 2015)

J1888 said:


> I'd be interested to see the data for that.



If you are not prepared to accept the contention from those who know, do your own legwork and spend a few days in the public gallery of your local magistrates' or crown court.

Edit: Beaten to it by @Drago


----------



## slowmotion (26 Aug 2015)

Here's the summary of a paper on crime and unemployment using Canadian data.
http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/economics/research/serps/articles/2013_001
It suggests a link with property crime, but not violent crime.


----------



## Lonestar (26 Aug 2015)

Drago said:


> This is why I always preach that it ain't worth making rude signs, gobbing off or even acknowledging chumps. You've nothing whatsoever to gain, and anything that then happens as a consequence inevitably falls on the negative side of the balance sheet.



I've done it so many times but of course you are so right.


----------



## Tin Pot (26 Aug 2015)

Poverty begets crime, which confuses those who would prefer it be a genetic or racial trait.

It's not something the right wing tend to like to hear either.


----------



## winjim (26 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Poverty begets crime, which confuses those who would prefer it be a genetic or racial trait.
> 
> It's not something the right wing tend to like to hear either.


Of course racism begets poverty, which confuses the issue somewhat.


----------



## Davidsw8 (26 Aug 2015)

cd365 said:


> So cyclists should ride around meekly just in case there is an idiot out there?
> This "trial by internet" thing I am really starting to like, you do something illegal like assault, drive with undue care & consideration etc. and you should be prepared, in this selfie world now, for someone to be filming. Maybe the more it happens the more people will think twice. The c0ck in this video assaulted a woman and is now receiving threats, poetic justice I think. If someone ran up to him now, pushed him over and shouted "come on then" would he be so brave? Somehow I doubt it!



The internet can be truly awful with people hiding behind it to bully and harrass others but in this kind of situation it comes into it's own. Little bit like that cat in the bin woman a few years back and the Lion killing dentist recently. Before, these people just happily carry on their bad behaviour. It's bit big brother-ish but with the bad comes some good too.

I hope more people will start to confront bad behaviour too, it takes bravery sometimes but if we all said something as someone runs a red light or pedestrian nearly knocks someone off their bike, maybe there'd be a bit less of it?

What this girl said was so mild 'please dont knock me off', I've said waaaaay worse than that. People come along endangering my physical safety cos they cant be bothered to wait a split second, I don't think it's out of order to comment.


----------



## Tin Pot (26 Aug 2015)

So, we replace a thousand year old proven and globally respected justice system with privately owned video footage and lynching mobs.

Yay for progress!

Facepalm.


----------



## Davidsw8 (26 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> So, we replace a thousand year old proven and globally respected justice system with privately owned video footage and lynching mobs.
> 
> Yay for progress!
> 
> Facepalm.



Why not have both? The privately owned video footage is evidence to be used in our wonderfully effective justice system  

And no one's been lynched or is likely to be.


----------



## classic33 (26 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> So, we replace a thousand year old proven and globally respected justice system with privately owned video footage and lynching mobs.
> 
> Yay for progress!
> 
> Facepalm.


Just an advance on "They said, I said", which has been the mainstay of the system. Unless you had money in the olden days.


Tin Pot said:


> Poverty begets crime, which confuses those who would prefer it be a genetic or racial trait.
> 
> It's not something the right wing tend to like to hear either.


The bankers are poor then!
Caught a solicitor shoplifting, with a purpose made coat. And he didn't appear to be poor.

Is poverty a relative thing?


----------



## Pale Rider (26 Aug 2015)

The initial value of the video footage in this case was it identified the suspect.

He will surely have known the police would be given his name sooner or later, so chose to give himself up.

As far as I can gather, this was a classic police witness appeal in that the Met released the footage, or possibly just a still image.

Many crimes have been solved over the years by witness appeals.

What has changed recently is pictures/vids can be shunted around the internet and anyone can comment on them.


----------



## Tin Pot (26 Aug 2015)

classic33 said:


> The bankers are poor then!
> Caught a solicitor shoplifting, with a purpose made coat. And he didn't appear to be poor.
> 
> Is poverty a relative thing?



How in God's name is that a logical response to my post?


----------



## cd365 (26 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> So, we replace a thousand year old proven and globally respected justice system with privately owned video footage and lynching mobs.
> 
> Yay for progress!
> 
> Facepalm.


Give me a pitchfork


----------



## Hip Priest (26 Aug 2015)

I spoke to somebody earlier who had a different perspective on the video, that may render this entire discussion pointless. She reckoned that the incident began earlier than shown on the video. The cyclist had had some sort of run in with the pedestrian, where she waved a finger, and he threatened to to push her off. The video apparently starts with him having almost caught her up, which is why she says 'please don't push me off'.


----------



## Hip Priest (26 Aug 2015)

User said:


> He must be a good runner.



I don't know the area. Perhaps he was able to take a shortcut unavailable to the cyclist. Perhaps not.


----------



## Pale Rider (27 Aug 2015)

Hip Priest said:


> I spoke to somebody earlier who had a different perspective on the video, that may render this entire discussion pointless. She reckoned that the incident began earlier than shown on the video. The cyclist had had some sort of run in with the pedestrian, where she waved a finger, and he threatened to to push her off. The video apparently starts with him having almost caught her up, which is why she says 'please don't push me off'.



Doesn't yobbo say something like: "So you think you can put your finger up at me?"

I suspect he subjected her to some random cyclist abuse, to which she responded with the finger gesture.


----------



## Hitchington (27 Aug 2015)

There's been way too much analysis here. The bloke was a violent dick. End of.


----------



## Inertia (27 Aug 2015)

Hitchington said:


> There's been way too much analysis here. The bloke was a violent dick. End of.


Indeed, nothing justifies his assault.

Speculation about what he meant by finger could be as simple as her pointing at him, some people dont even like to be looked at.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (27 Aug 2015)

Maybe she simply indicated left, and that was enough for him to fly off the handle.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (28 Aug 2015)

Drago said:


> Ooh yes. Can I go with "is deeply remorseful and has turned his life around since the incident and is now actively seeking work."



Damn, I've just thought of another one that I may be swayed towards: " he has very little recollection of the events..."


GC


----------



## jefmcg (28 Aug 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Absolutely not, the crime is worthy of greater repulsion because it is male on female violence. A man is far more likely to attack someone if they are female, than male.


That's simply not true. Men are about twice as likely as women to be the victims of violent crimes.


----------



## jefmcg (28 Aug 2015)

Map of start of video, if anyone wants to check out the streets in question.


----------



## Hitchington (28 Aug 2015)

Is there a grassy knoll?


----------



## jefmcg (28 Aug 2015)

[QUOTE 3877437, member: 45"]I blame the woman with the pushchair.[/QUOTE]
You can't really be sure it's a woman. It could be the assailant, staking out the junction for his attack in a years time.


----------



## Drago (28 Aug 2015)

jefmcg said:


> That's simply not true. Men are about twice as likely as women to be the victims of violent crimes.



And more likely during daylight hours at that.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (28 Aug 2015)

I only go out at night in a dress, just to be safe.


----------



## Drago (28 Aug 2015)

ClichéGuevara said:


> I only go out at night in a dress, just to be safe.



Do you find it safer in the lay bys dressed like that?


----------



## ClichéGuevara (28 Aug 2015)

Drago said:


> Do you find it safer in the lay bys dressed like that?



It seems to be more profitable.


----------

