# Conviction based on headcam evidence



## benborp (28 Oct 2010)

In July I was involved in an incident on my way home. Today I was in court as a witness. The result is the driver being found guilty of careless driving, pleading guilty to public order offences but being found not guilty of assault. The latter is due to the court finding that there was no direct evidence that he struck me.
There would have been no chance of a prosecution without the video evidence. I'm pleased that the police and the CPS took the driving offences seriously as they posed greater risk to me than the assault, although it was the punch that made the incident worth reporting.

Video link and news on sentencing to follow.

The video contains swearing.


----------



## Vikeonabike (28 Oct 2010)

benborp said:


> In July I was involved in an incident on my way home. Today I was in court as a witness. The result is the driver being found guilty of careless driving, pleading guilty to public order offences but being found not guilty of assault. The latter is due to the court finding that there was no direct evidence that he struck me.
> There would have been no chance of a prosecution without the video evidence. I'm pleased that the police and the CPS took the driving offences seriously as they posed greater risk to me than the assault, although it was the punch that made the incident worth reporting.
> 
> Video link and news on sentencing to follow.



Good result Bb!


----------



## gaz (28 Oct 2010)

I remember this. Fantastic news. I think that makes you the second person that has had a conviction determined by helmet camera footage.

I think the assault played a big factor with the CPS taking your case that far, a real shame that didn't go to the guilty verdict.


----------



## CopperBrompton (28 Oct 2010)

Excellent news - I look forward to seeing the video


----------



## 400bhp (28 Oct 2010)

Yep - may make me get a camera.


----------



## maurice (29 Oct 2010)

Excellent, well done


----------



## benborp (29 Oct 2010)

I've updated the first post with a link to the video. I've got to thank Vikeonabike for his help with the statement template as it has made every step much easier for me.

As to sentencing, I had to leave court before any decision could be made. It looked like being quite a lengthy matter as there was confusion over aliases, conflicting birth dates and then verifying previous motoring convictions and whether they were spent. Hopefully I'll find out in a day or two.

The clinching matter for the panel appeared to be the fact that he had 'overtaken' on a pedestrian crossing. Again something that wouldn't have been possible to prove without the video. It was uncomfortable seeing the driver questioned with the video playing repeatedly constantly contradicting his statements as he spoke.


----------



## nilling (29 Oct 2010)

Result! What a vile man  pity they could not charge him for assault.


----------



## eddiemee (29 Oct 2010)

Good result, looked like a very scary incident. Stupid reckless driving and downright thuggish behaviour. I'm amazed at how calm you remained throughout.


----------



## Bman (29 Oct 2010)

eddiemee said:


> Good result, looked like a very scary incident. Stupid reckless driving and downright thuggish behaviour. I'm amazed at how calm you remained throughout.




Indeed. Just watching the vid made me angry!

Lets hope he never drives again


----------



## betty swollocks (29 Oct 2010)

Shocking: truly shocking: what a vile excuse for a human being.
Do let us know what his sentence was.
And well done for remaining calm and for reporting this creature.


----------



## slugonabike (29 Oct 2010)

What a thoroughly vile man! Let's hope the sentancing reflects that.


----------



## JoysOfSight (29 Oct 2010)

Excellent, well done for following through with this as it can't be easy! 

I find it a bit odd that he wasn't done for assault, given that you can be done for assault even *without* camera footage. The footage certainly doesn't contradict that.

Please follow up when sentencing comes in (I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they'll take a dim view)


----------



## Chutzpah (29 Oct 2010)

Also amazed that he couldn't be done for assault, especially as there's "no direct evidence" that he struck you. Maybe you should have asked him to provide a running commentary for what he was doing






And careless? I'd say that was dangerous.

However, the main thing is that you're OK, and well done on pursuing it.


----------



## Jaguar (29 Oct 2010)

Well done there, I hope he loses his license for a while.
I do wonder how the CPS decides who to prosecute? My crash involved a driver hitting me almost head-on, but the police report said it was " a momentary lapse of attention" and therefore not worth pursuing


----------



## DrSquirrel (29 Oct 2010)

Good news, although slightly sad on the assault part... 2 out of 3 aint bad 

Just hope the sentencing is half way decent now...


----------



## BSRU (29 Oct 2010)

Good to see the courts accepting video evidence and hopefully this Neanderthal is suitably punished.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (29 Oct 2010)

Apart from the thuggery...

A prime example of the "Indicators Excuse All" school of motoring - the triumphant_ "aha! got you now!"_ when he shouts "You saw me indicate!"


----------



## Sh4rkyBloke (29 Oct 2010)

benborp said:


> In July I was involved in an incident on my way home. Today I was in court as a witness. The result is the driver being found guilty of careless driving, pleading guilty to public order offences but being found not guilty of assault. The latter is due to the court finding that there was no direct evidence that he struck me.
> There would have been no chance of a prosecution without the video evidence. I'm pleased that the police and the CPS took the driving offences seriously as they posed greater risk to me than the assault, although it was the punch that made the incident worth reporting.
> 
> Video link and news on sentencing to follow.
> ...


Unbelievable... the idiot actually says "get out of my f*ckin' way" - if that doesn't show clear anger management issues and an inability to drive appropriately... hope they throw the book at him, but as they aren't doing him for assault (no idea why, perhaps they thought you were faking the bizarre movements as he hit/pushed you whilst swearing at you) I won't hold my breath. Well done for reporting it, and kudos to Vike for his assistance from "the official side".


----------



## magnatom (29 Oct 2010)

Excellent result with regards to the driving, crazy result with regards to the assault. Surely his swearing and aggression amounts to assault in the letter of the law (someone please correct me if I am wrong!). Also from the video, you might not see the punch, but from the sounds and head movement it is beyond reasonable doubt, in my opinion.

Still, it does prove that camera can be effective in this situation.

Would you be up for publicity with regards to this? If so, it would be a good story for the papers and would highlight to drivers that they could get caught on camera. If so, it might be worth talking to the CTC.

I can understand if you don't want to do this though.


----------



## Origamist (29 Oct 2010)

I can't view the film at the moment, Ben - but well done for pursuing this twat and getting a conviction.

Did the court ask you about the film - could it have been edited, doctored, how could they be sure it was authentic etc?

I think this case should be highlighted by the LCC or CTC - but I can understand why you might not want the attendant publicity.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (29 Oct 2010)

Great result, and well done. I suppose it must have been a bit weird coming face to face with that nutter in a court room! 




Origamist said:


> Did the court ask you about the film - could it have been edited, doctored, how could they be sure it was authentic etc?




This is often the reason given by the police for declining to pursue drivers filmed talking on their mobile phones.


----------



## DrSquirrel (29 Oct 2010)

[QUOTE 1231562"]
+1 to Mag. People need to see that they can't get away with this type of road behaviour. Getting the clip out into the media with details of the conviction would help.

Though I suspect that a lot of responses would be along the lines of "but you hit his van".
[/quote]

I know what you mean about the comments from idiots etc.

But... they couldn't prove in court that the driver hit said cyclist... so unless benborp admited to hitting the van they couldn't prove that either


----------



## 400bhp (29 Oct 2010)

benborp said:


> I've updated the first post with a link to the video. I've got to thank Vikeonabike for his help with the statement template as it has made every step much easier for me.
> 
> As to sentencing, I had to leave court before any decision could be made. It looked like being quite a lengthy matter as there was confusion over aliases, conflicting birth dates and then verifying previous motoring convictions and whether they were spent. Hopefully I'll find out in a day or two.
> 
> The clinching matter for the panel appeared to be the fact that he had 'overtaken' on a pedestrian crossing. Again something that wouldn't have been possible to prove without the video. It was uncomfortable seeing the driver questioned with the video playing repeatedly constantly contradicting his statements as he spoke.



Will you be able to find out? Perhaps a link to a local paper? What date was the court date and where was the court?


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (29 Oct 2010)

> there was confusion over aliases, conflicting birth dates and then verifying previous motoring convictions










Sounds like a slippery customer.


----------



## Browser (29 Oct 2010)

Sorry for hurtling off sideways for a second Ben, but what make/model of camera was that? I keep wondering whether to get one but am leery of buying one only to find it ain't up to what I want from it.
Excellent recult by the way, we need more likle this to deter the knuckleheads!


----------



## CopperBrompton (29 Oct 2010)

Wow, that guy has serious anger issues. Fingers crossed on a decent result.

Like others, I'm surprised he couldn't be convicted of assault on that evidence. From the abrupt stop, storming out of the van and approach, it could hardly be more aggressive, so although ultimately the blow is your word against his, you have a lot of supporting evidence on your side.


----------



## asterix (29 Oct 2010)

Would a civil prosecution work?


----------



## mr_cellophane (29 Oct 2010)

Good result, one down couple of million to go.


----------



## Peter10 (29 Oct 2010)

What sentence did he get? You should be able to call the court. It is something the public are freely aloud to call and find out about. Some courts even publish it in their website.


----------



## benborp (29 Oct 2010)

A few responses and a chance to get some things off my chest after a few months.

Regarding what Chutzpah said about the standard of driving being considered careless rather than dangerous - I agree. There were elements of the incident that in my mind were deliberate attempts to endanger me and thus, funnily enough, dangerous. However there is such a bias, public and official, and also procedural against being able to make more serious motoring charges stick and then lead to a conviction that 'careless driving' was all that would stand a chance in this case. I think this bias is what led to Jaguar's experiences and also leads to situations like this:

Partially-sighted man cleared of death crash charge

where the jury wouldn't convict on a more serious death by dangerous driving charge but did convict on dangerous driving, even though the victim was still unarguably dead, killed by the collision with the driver's vehicle.

As to further publicity, I realise that results such as this are valuable as campaign material for cyclists, however I think this case is a little too muddy too be effective. Many will see this incident as a case of a gobby cyclist, riding like a twat getting what he deserves (I'll give my justifications later as to why I would probably do much the same if placed in a similar situation again). I'm also keen to let the matter rest myself and there is also a part of me that feels sorry for the driver, who was transformed in to a quite pathetic figure in the courtroom. I can see more publicity being less beneficial to his future driving.

The process I went through with the video evidence was as follows. After a couple of phone calls I went to my local police station (which isn't that local, there used to be four that were closer, harumphh) to make a statement. I had copied a version of the edit that I've used on youtube on to my mobile phone and also various versions of the same clip in different file formats on to a memory stick. I was able to show the footage on my phone to the PC at the front desk. I had also prepared a statement using Vikeonabike's template. The video, the statement and the transcript within it immediately had the PC's attention and made the whole process of reporting the incident far more urgent. Incidents in the past, although serious, were just an uncorroborated allegation and while giving a statement there was the acknowledgement that it was the start of a long, fruitless process. This was different. I had to give a verbal statement to the PC and this took an hour or so. Having the template to hand as I did this made it all much smoother and less taxing. Keeping events straight in your head and not missing anything out while staying concise as you go back and forth over the incident is fairly heavy going. Having it already to hand, in your own words is great.
I didn't have to hand any footage in at this stage and I was simply told to make sure that the original was kept safe. My statement was forwarded on to the police station that would be investigating and I was told I would be contacted in about a weeks time.
Two days later I was contacted by the PC who was to investigate. He was quite intrigued by the prospect of using video footage of the incident and arranged for me to come in a and give another statement. This was similar to the process that I went through previously, although this time the memory stick was taken from me and checked that a usable file format was on it that the Met and the CPS could use (This memory stick was bagged as evidence and again I was asked to keep the original safe). Also, the statement developed from a far more rigorous discussion of the events. This PC had previously been a cycling officer and had once collared a moped rider after a chase. It was useful to have someone that understood some of the intricacies of cycling in traffic. He said that having helmetcam footage would make all the difference in bringing a prosecution. I also stressed that I was just as concerned by the traffic offences if not more so that the assault.
When it came to the court hearing the magistrates were shown the footage that had been copied from the memory stick. There were no questions asked about the veracity of the footage or events preceding or following the end of the clip (identical to the youtube one). If there had been I'm fairly confident that I would have been able to cite the use of the equipment that I have as being used by various government agencies and used as evidential proof in previous cases. Again, the prosecution told me that the footage made all the difference to bringing this matter to court. They thought it a bizarre outcome that there was not a guilty verdict on the assault. I do now have the opportunity to pursue a civil prosecution which I'm told I would be highly likely to win, but I suffered little in all of this and have little to gain from pursuing someone with little to compensate me with.

Browser: the camera is a VIO s.c.o.u.t. bullet camera attached to a PVR500 digital recorder. This setup is obsolete now but if you talk to dogcamsport.co.uk they would be able to tell what is similar. I prefer the smaller bullet cameras that are then attached to a separate recording unit as the bulk is more spread out and the camera itself is more discrete.

I still haven't been able to get through on the court's result service telephone line.


----------



## karlos_the_jackal (29 Oct 2010)

Brilliant summary there. 

Completely agree with you regarding the case, justice has been done in some way. I think it will change that individual hopefully.


----------



## magnatom (29 Oct 2010)

Fair enough about publicity. If my case does ever make it to court (the procurator fiscal was supposed to get back to my query about it in 21 working days. It has now been over 40 working days! I have chased them up again today, mentioning the press...) I'll probably get the media involved. I don't hink anyone can blame me for the tanker incident (although they have tried! )


----------



## Jezston (29 Oct 2010)

Thanks for the detailed info, Ben - I'd imagine all of this will be useful to all of us should we be the victims in such incidents.

One thing I would say is that I think it would be a very good idea to persue a civil prosecution. Check with legal advice but I would think it was quite possible that while the individual may have little to compensate you with, his insurance company will - this is of course assuming his insurance would be liable. This will have the knock on effect that his insurance premiums would rise to the point of him being unable to drive, which is a good result not only for yourself but for all road users.


----------



## CopperBrompton (29 Oct 2010)

benborp said:


> Browser: the camera is a VIO s.c.o.u.t. bullet camera attached to a PVR500 digital recorder. This setup is obsolete now but if you talk to dogcamsport.co.uk they would be able to tell what is similar.


The VIO POV1.5 is the current version:
http://www.vio-pov.com/products/pov_15.php


----------



## thirdcrank (29 Oct 2010)

benborp

I'm glad you came out of this OK, the incident on the road was appalling and then, as others have found, the legal process can be nearly as daunting. Well done, for seeing this through, and thanks for going to the trouble to describe it all in detail.

The message must be that first, when the evidence is available, these things will be pursued by the authorities and secondly, that headcam footage of this type is excellent evidence.

As others have said, the Not Guilty verdict in respect of the assault is hard to understand. I presume your evidence was that he hit you and the defendant denied it. The court, in this case I presume it was a bench of lay magistrates, has to be convinced of the guilt of the defendant "beyond reasonable doubt." Bearing in mind that for common assault "taking a swing" is sufficient to commit the offence and any contact - "the battery" only serves to make it worse, it's hard to imagine what the court found doubtful, unless your evidence included some uncertainty. If you gave clear evidence that he either hit you or tried and missed, then I'd say the verdict was quite perverse.

I think your tip about making a note of what happened as soon as possible after the event is an important one. It's easy to think that with something as bad as this you will remember it forever, but it's amazing how the memory works (and doesn't work) by filling in gaps and creating others.

Incidentally, you are a braver man than I am. After that incident, I should have stayed put until the driver had driven away and until he did I should have been watching his reversing lights. I would have been too frightened to ride past him and get back in front.

(Finally, I saw this because it was linked to the CTC forum where I usually ramble on at length, but the tread was locked before I got my oar in.)


----------



## benborp (29 Oct 2010)

As to my version of events and my justification for my actions, here goes.

People have asked why I didn't just drop in behind the overtaking vehicle at the start of the clip. In fact, I was asked this in court, the driver also stated that I had accelerated up his inside.

There are several elements that some people aren't necessarily aware of when watching the video.
Some of these may be due to the way a camera doesn't replicate what we see, the wide-angle lens of the camera makes everything look further away than it actually is; it can also alter the perception of the speed of moving objects: some may appear to be moving more slowly than in reality and some, particularly when close to the lens, may appear to be moving more swiftly. Some of these may be due to some people's lack of awareness of the differences between motor-vehicle and cycle handling.

The overtake is very close to a junction. It is performed aggressively and late. The overtake is not complete and the bike and van speeds are similar as the van starts braking for the junction. A bike travelling at speed in optimum conditions is unlikely to brake to a stop quicker than a motor vehicle. Proportionally to weight the motor-vehicle has the advantage of far superior mechanical power to apply to the much larger braking surfaces. It has much larger contact patches on the road to exert grip. It has a much greater advantage in terms of weight transference - you never see the equivalent of a cyclist going over the handlebars happen to a car. A four wheeled vehicle is massively more stable. To expect a cyclist to not only brake as effectively as a van but even more so to the extent that they are in a position where they are not in danger of a long wheelbase, left turning vehicle passing over them with its rear wheels is unreasonable. Conditions also happen not to be optimum when a cyclists line is constrained by an overtaking vehicle, the cyclists situational awareness is completely dominated by the overtaking vehicle and the cyclist is forced to react to the constantly changing position of the vehicle next to them.
It would be possible to back out at the first inkling of an overtake, but then that just creates the situation of a cyclist backing off unexpectedly early in front of a vehicle. There have been far more occasions in my cycling life when vehicles without any intent to overtake have allowed their nose to edge past me before backing off to make a manoeuvre. In those situations I would be exacerbating the problem.

I freely admitted at all stages that I hit the van. It had passed closely and then pushed me further to the left. It was brushing down my right hand side. I know exactly what is likely to happen in these circumstances. The rider is either caught at the shoulder and pulled forwards and towards the vehicle and can't steer the bike further right to maintain balance and is dragged off the bike and falls towards the vehicle; or the vehicle catches the arm or hand and turns the bars away - if the riders weight is in the wrong place at this point the rider falls extremely quickly, again probably towards the vehicle. I believe the best option is to get the right hand off the bars and give a solid push to break contact with side of the vehicle rather than risk even a light contact immediately throwing me down. I have no qualms about protecting myself in this way again.


----------



## Chutzpah (29 Oct 2010)

Obviously as the person that started the "are cameras always useful?" thread, I think it's worth stating that they are 100% useful in situations like this. I was provoking a debate about whether it made riders more prone to aggression unnecessarily, and in another thread I've questioned posting clips but not following them through.

I don't think you were overly aggressive in this clip, I probably would have placed my hands on his vehicle too for my own safety. And as I said earlier in this thread, kudos for seeing it through. I doubt the brute will learn, but at least he's been done for this.


----------



## ferret fur (29 Oct 2010)

I shouldn't pre judge what the sentence was, but I do think that he will end up not being given very much for the careless driving. This is what bugs me. As cyclist/pedestrian/car driver I want nutters like this OFF the road for a long time. For him to be given the same sort of sentance as someone getting caught at 35 in a 30 zone on a clear road & otherwise driving safely is just insane. Whatever you think appropriate for the latter the way this guy behaves should lead to a long ban. Why do the courts & society generally seem to think that this sort of thing is accepatble when driving a couple of tons of metal? Ban them for a period of years is what I say (& I am unanimous in this)


----------



## andrew-the-tortoise (29 Oct 2010)

Just seen the vid, nice result - I admire your coolness!


----------



## fimm (29 Oct 2010)

I am very impressed at the way you stay calm when he is swearing at you. I don't think I would have managed to do so.


----------



## courtenay (29 Oct 2010)

Bravo, i applaud your calmness, i know i would not have been able to remain calm and any footage would probably have shown me bouncing his head off the pavement had he assaulted me. However im more than a little dissappointed he was not found guilty of the assualt, as if this is how he reacts to a situation such as this it is likely that his aggressive and violent attitude is present in other areas of his day to day life, having said that it also means it wont be long before he ends up with a conviction for it anyhow.

Once again well done for your calmness and also for having the gumption to see it through to a conviction.


----------



## benborp (29 Oct 2010)

Thirdcrank, do you have a link to the CTC forum thread. I haven't had much luck searching and my phone keeps on being denied access to the CTC domain. Cheers.


----------



## thirdcrank (29 Oct 2010)

benborp said:


> Thirdcrank, do you have a link to the CTC forum thread. I haven't had much luck searching and my phone keeps on being denied access to the CTC domain. Cheers.



http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=43741

The thread there has now been unlocked - the locking was a misunderstanding, nothing sinister.


----------



## DrSquirrel (29 Oct 2010)

ferret fur said:


> I shouldn't pre judge what the sentence was, but I do think that he will end up not being given very much for the careless driving. This is what bugs me. As cyclist/pedestrian/car driver I want nutters like this OFF the road for a long time. For him to be given the same sort of sentance as someone getting caught at 35 in a 30 zone on a clear road & otherwise driving safely is just insane. Whatever you think appropriate for the latter the way this guy behaves should lead to a long ban. Why do the courts & society generally seem to think that this sort of thing is accepatble when driving a couple of tons of metal? Ban them for a period of years is what I say (& I am unanimous in this)



At the end of the day right and wrong are dictated by the majority.

If 99% of people decided that honour killings (one example) was perfectly normal, then why would such be illegal?

Driving whilst drunk at one time wasn't as socially unacceptable as it is today.

In this case - because the majority drive, punishments for this activity are relatively weak.

Speeding points are just a blanket punishment because it's "easier" to automatically punish people - it takes into no consideration of how dangerous activity was at said time.



If the court case was judged by 100 random people, strangers. You might find that even with all the evidence in mind... the majority would/might side with the van driver (to me it seems a bit extreme in this video for that - but hopefully you get the point).


----------



## Number14 (29 Oct 2010)

mr_cellophane said:


> Good result, one down couple of million to go.




Two down, just under a couple of million to go.  

Mine got £175 fine, 5 points on his licence, £35 costs and a caution for assault.

Is *SVM* the new WVM?


----------



## leemo (29 Oct 2010)

For standing up to these bullies, remaining calm, and seeing things through to a successful prosecution you both should be proud of yourselves. You are helping to make the roads safer for all cyclists, and I for one am grateful.


----------



## CopperBrompton (29 Oct 2010)

Number14 said:


> Mine got £175 fine, 5 points on his licence, £35 costs and a caution for assault.


Good result.


----------



## taxing (29 Oct 2010)

What a horrible man. 

If something like this ever happens to a head cam wearer again it might be an idea after they're hit you/pushed you to ask "why did you hit me?" They might incriminate themselves by giving you a reason for why they hit you.


----------



## decca234uk (29 Oct 2010)

Well done for having the courage and persistence to see this through. Most people would have just let this pass. I'm definetly going to get a cam for my helmet; at last cyclists have got something to fight back with. Thanks to you this guy will have to think twice about how he behaves towards cyclists.


----------



## ComedyPilot (30 Oct 2010)

Good result. 

But that tw@t would have been put on his @rse in quick time had he tried that with me. I am all for conflict avoidance, but he attacked the OP, and IMO deserved to get the tables turned on him.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2010)

ComedyPilot said:


> Good result.
> 
> But that tw@t would have been put on his @rse in quick time had he tried that with me. I am all for conflict avoidance, but he attacked the OP, and IMO deserved to get the tables turned on him.



See your other thread - perhaps not so easy when you have a bicycle between your legs.


----------



## Bollo (30 Oct 2010)

Good result Ben.

Just to add my 0.02 euros to the assault charge, it's very disappointing that it didn't stick. Without getting into trouble by giving away too much, I was a juror on an offensive weapons case a few years ago. The prosecution's case was based solely on some CCTV footage and, on first viewing, I and most of the other jurors thought bang-to-rights. The excellent judge then explained the boundaries that the law required us to apply to our interpretation of the footage. He also explained the reasons for these boundaries in lay terms. In short, the scope for inference and speculation in particular are much less than you'd probably apply when watching Police, Camera, Action for example. Looked at in the terms allowed by law and the lack of other evidence, the CCTV footage in the case was inconclusive.

I guess you didn't get the same hand-holding from a magistrate, but I'm assuming that tw@tface got the benefit of the doubt because your footage didn't catch any punch. The lack of independent witnesses and a plausible alternative explanation (your camera jiggled because you lost you balance perhaps?), he or she probably felt there wasn't enough to convict. Not fair, but probably 'correct'.

The careless/dangerous driving thing is a joke though.


----------



## ComedyPilot (30 Oct 2010)

400bhp said:


> See your other thread - perhaps not so easy when you have a bicycle between your legs.



I notice in the vid Ben lifts the front wheel to place it between him and the attacker....good move.


----------



## benborp (30 Oct 2010)

ComedyPilot said:


> I notice in the vid Ben lifts the front wheel to place it between him and the attacker....good move.



That's something I meant to stress earlier on. Being astride the bike, or holding it useless by your side is a liability when a confrontation starts (especially, as others have already mentioned, when you're wearing carbon soled, cleated shoes). The moment I raised the bike between him and me, his attitude changed completely. He was far less certain of what was going on and started backing away. That would be my top tip, that and not walking blind round the corner of a van straight into a punch.

On the usefulness of martial arts training; possessing the knowledge of how to disable an attacker makes it far easier to 'talk them down'. People (particularly bullies) find it unsettling when you don't respond how they expect. The fact that you are assessing their weakspots rather than behaving like their prey can stop things before they even get started. I've persuaded much larger people than me that were intent on teaching me a lesson to get back in their car.


----------



## 661-Pete (30 Oct 2010)

Good work Benborp. Indeed I, having been a headcam-sceptic for all this time, am now maybe convinced they are worth it! I bought a cheapo one (ATC2K) on an impulse, some time ago, but it delivers rather poor quality and I've hardly ever used it. I think it might not be up to this sort of thing!

Interesting how one of the 'commenters' thinks you were filming from a handheld mobile. Have they really taken the trouble to seek out videos such as yours to post abuse on, yet appear to have no knowledge of work such as Magnatom's and Gaz's which has been posted up for years?


----------



## gaz (30 Oct 2010)

661-Pete said:


> Interesting how one of the 'commenters' thinks you were filming from a handheld mobile. Have they really taken the trouble to seek out videos such as yours to post abuse on, yet appear to have no knowledge of work such as Magnatom's and Gaz's which has been posted up for years?



I've had several people think i'm cycling with a JVC tape driven handheld camcorder whilst cycling.


----------



## CopperBrompton (31 Oct 2010)

gaz said:


> I've had several people think i'm cycling with a JVC tape driven handheld camcorder whilst cycling.


Bet they felt really silly when you pointed out it was actually Betamax.


----------



## Johnny Fox (31 Oct 2010)

Cycling into work a couple of months ago (approx 05:30am) going straight across a roundabout I was cut up by a Rover 400 car.
The driver, came onto the roundabout from the left and was looking straight at me as he approached.
Near miss but by breaking hard I managed to avoid the car.
The Rover kept on down the road I was travelling on to the next roundabout, the road was on a slight downhill so I regained a reasonable speed.
At the next roundabout the Rover slowed and went all the way round at a very slow speed, I kept left in the cycle lane and he came up behind me, overtook and braked hard.
After he had stopped he got out of the car and started shouting abuse towards me. I was some 10 feet away from him so did not feel that threatened.
Suddenly a police car stopped behind me, the policeman came over and asked if we had been involved in an accident, I told him the gist of what had gone on and he went over to talk to the driver.
Next minute the driver is being walked to the back of the police car, breathalysed and arrested.
Went to court, prosecuted for Drink driving, dangerous driving, no insurance, no MOT and no tax…….

Driver, in court said he did not see me at the first roundabout (I had lights on and reflective jacket) he then said that I chased him down the road (I am 50 years old and 14 ½ stone so could not have chased a car if I wanted to) in a threatening manner therefore intimidating him which is why he stopped me to sort out the problem. Solicitor raised the question if he did not see me why did he feel I was chasing him.
Found guilty on all counts and will not be driving for the foreseeable future…..
Another moron off the road!

Also shows that the police will protect the cyclist from these drivers.


----------



## theFire (31 Oct 2010)

Johnny Fox said:


> Another moron off the road!



Always good to hear!


----------



## 661-Pete (31 Oct 2010)

gaz said:


> I've had several people think i'm cycling with a JVC tape driven handheld camcorder whilst cycling.


Hey! I've got one of those (well, Sony, not JVC, but same thing)! Had it for years. Question is, how to fix it to the bike - or my head ???


----------



## thomas (31 Oct 2010)

Johnny Fox said:


> Cycling into work a couple of months ago (approx 05:30am) going straight across a roundabout I was cut up by a Rover 400 car.
> The driver, came onto the roundabout from the left and was looking straight at me as he approached.
> Near miss but by breaking hard I managed to avoid the car.
> The Rover kept on down the road I was travelling on to the next roundabout, the road was on a slight downhill so I regained a reasonable speed.
> ...



Hah. 

An Uncle once got cut up while cycling and before he had a chance to tell the guy off at the next set of lights, a Police motorcyclist came along side and said something like "You don't cut this guy up, but you certainly don't do it having just cut me up!". Silly driver had just cut up the Police motorcyclist before hand.


----------

