Do the Police not care?

[thomas]

I think it is important to say that I obviously don't condone making threats to kill, whether they are flippant or not. It's not a particularly nice or sensible thing to do. And I obviously don't condone bad driving.

How do you know how someone else is feeling? Did you teleport yourself back in time and listen to the threat and then mind-meld with Porter? Stop the idle speculation.

I think it is far from idle speculation. His actions at the time do not show that of someone whos life was in danger. You certainly wouldn't mouth off at the end like he did with the indicators remark if your life was in danger.

Perhaps my reaction to a serious death threat is different to this guys and yours? He obviously (thinks he has at least - I don't know) has a good understanding of the law and he wants to use that. We all have our side projects and this is a nice bit of professionally PR for him.

So what if more serious incidents go unpunished, that's hardly a compelling reason not to pursue less serious criminal behaviour.

Well obviously not, but I feel that he is putting a disproportionation amount of effort into this.



What would you say a good outcome for this would be if it went to court?

 

[gaz]

At the end of the day, weather we agree with this clip being used or not. This cyclist knows what he is doing, and fighting for all of us. If we get more recognition from the CPS then it's about time!

 

[thomas]

At the end of the day, weather we agree with this clip being used or not. This cyclist knows what he is doing, and fighting for all of us. If we get more recognition from the CPS then it's about time!

I guess I just feel that there are more important clips to try and get more recognition from.

I can understand why they don't want to prosecute with this clip. Obviously I disagree with this, but if I was in any jury about this and the driver claimed to have not said it and that he misheard the question, or was being sarcastic in response (eg. never threatened him) about the death threat I would probably side with him. Just because I think there is a reasonable doubt to what happened.

While I do believe some comment about killing the cyclist was probably made (whether flippant or not), I don't feel that the footage in the video is evidence enough. Obviously, not in any jury but if I was the fact that I don't feel this is the best case to spend a lot of time on wouldn't make any difference.

But hey, whatever, I've said my piece.

I saw mentioned about a FPN of £80...why wasn't this issued? It sounded like the Police were going to, but then told not to or something? Just interested...

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

I'm sorry. Read my post again as I said nothing like that.

Thomas, if you are not saying anything like that, then why are you continually raising the matter of this incident not being as bad as other incidents on youtube?

What is the point of bringing this up? I wouldn't suggest that someone not pursue the theft of some money, because other people have been burgled. So what is it that you are driving at? I was just guessing at your motivation, but the only reasonable basis I can think of is that you believe he should only bother to pursue an incident when it is as serious (or you perceive it to be as serious) as what you have experienced. Correct, or not? Should he bother in this case, or shouldn't he?

Even if you judge it in isolation it's a driver failed to see the pinch point. Cyclist and driver argue for 10 seconds, driver drives off. Cyclist catches up and carries on arguing. Cyclist makes silly remark when car is in filter lane.

I'm sorry, but that is a woefully partial account of what happened.

A) The driver did not fail to see the pinchpoint. He saw it very clearly. That is why he uses his horn - because Martin Porter's positioning is preventing him from squeezing a dangerous overtake at that particular point. That is blatantly aggressive, hostile and intimidatory driving. It is not an innocent mistake, or a failure of observation.

B) The cyclist does not 'carry on arguing'. He is filtering past the car, probably minutes later, when - unprovoked, with no words uttered - the driver threatens to kill him. Again - are you even watching the same video?

C) The cyclist does not make a 'silly remark" - he simply asks the driver if he threatened to kill him. Quite reasonably, I suspect (with his lawyer mind) he wanted some confirmation of the previous threat. Why you find this passage 'silly' is beyond me.

I'm sorry. I just don't have much sympathy for this clip. Having been in a situation where I actually thought I was going to die under the rear of a HGV trailer, I'm not that bothered about some petty comment.

Nope. Not buying this. The overtake on you was terrible. I've seen it. But even if the incident under discussion matches exactly your partial rendering of it (and I don't believe it does, because you cannot hear the crucial remark, or see the manner of the driver as he utters it - you are completely in the dark as to its seriousness), you should still have some sympathy. This is a fellow cyclist being threatened by a dangerous bully, and you "don't have much sympathy"? Come on.

I don't feel that trying to get this clip prosecuted is a good use of time and I don't feel it does anything to make cyclist safer.

I'm sorry, but this is also nonsense. Who are you to say whether it is a good use of Martin Porter's time? I think that's up to him to judge, not you. He's not costing you anything - let him decide what he wants to pursue.


And justify your second point, please.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

I think it is far from idle speculation. His actions at the time do not show that of someone whos life was in danger. You certainly wouldn't mouth off at the end like he did with the indicators remark if your life was in danger.

Can't let this go either. The "mouthing off" happened after the driver was challenged as to what he had said. Porter himself - if you had read what he has written - is quite clear that he no longer felt in danger at this point. But that surely does not - cannot - alter the seriousness of the original threat.

I quote from Martin Porter here -

He became more sheepish afterwards when, because his car was stationary and I was alongside him, he could no longer use it to harm me... Of course he did not actually kill me or in the event try to; if he had he would, or should, be on a murder or attempted murder charge. It is quite obviously not a defence to a charge of using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour that the offender stopped short of a more serious offence.

(my emphasis)

This is quite a simple point to grasp.

He obviously (thinks he has at least - I don't know) has a good understanding of the law and he wants to use that. We all have our side projects and this is a nice bit of professionally PR for him.

PR!?!?

Ouch! Cynicism! In one so young!

Sadly, I don't think your rather tendentious interpretation of Porter's motivations here stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

What would you say a good outcome for this would be if it went to court?

Why don't you try reading Martin Porter's blog? You might find out.

 

[thomas]

Thomas, if you are not saying anything like that, then why are you continually raising the matter of this incident not being as bad as other incidents on youtube?

What is the point of bringing this up? I wouldn't suggest that someone not pursue the theft of some money, because other people have been burgled. So what is it that you are driving at? I was just guessing at your motivation, but the only reasonable basis I can think of is that you believe he should only bother to pursue an incident when it is as serious (or you perceive it to be as serious) as what you have experienced. Correct, or not? Should he bother in this case, or shouldn't he?

Well, maybe I am. I don't know. I guess from a personal point of view, from some of the things I have experienced and from watching other people's videos I don't feel this is the most pressing thing to try and make a point over.

If he wants to do it then whatever, up to him. I wouldn't.

I'm sorry, but that is a woefully partial account of what happened.

A) The driver did not fail to see the pinchpoint. He saw it very clearly. That is why he uses his horn - because Martin Porter's positioning is preventing him from squeezing a dangerous overtake at that particular point. That is blatantly aggressive, hostile and intimidatory driving. It is not an innocent mistake, or a failure of observation.

B) The cyclist does not 'carry on arguing'. He is filtering past the car, probably minutes later, when - unprovoked, with no words uttered - the driver threatens to kill him. Again - are you even watching the same video?

C) The cyclist does not make a 'silly remark" - he simply asks the driver if he threatened to kill him. Quite reasonably, I suspect (with his lawyer mind) he wanted some confirmation of the previous threat. Why you find this passage 'silly' is beyond me.

Having re-watched the video I did miss the 10 minutes later thing, so happy to admit my mistake there. I watched the video first time ages ago and only flicked through it when posting that so my mistake.

However, to point C I meant the not indicating thing, not asking about the threat. It wouldn't be the type of remark I'd make to someone who had just threatened to kill me as it could egg them on.

Nope. Not buying this. The overtake on you was terrible. I've seen it. But even if the incident under discussion matches exactly your partial rendering of it (and I don't believe it does, because you cannot hear the crucial remark, or see the manner of the driver as he utters it - you are completely in the dark as to its seriousness), you should still have some sympathy. This is a fellow cyclist being threatened by a dangerous bully, and you "don't have much sympathy"? Come on.

Maybe I'm just in a bad mood - who knows.


I guess I feel that, out of my videos most are petty and don't actually bother me, but there have been a couple times where I have felt that my life was in serious danger and have been seriously scared (maybe only for a couple moments - but that's all it takes). Where as I don't feel this cyclist is pursuing this because he actually felt his life was at risk, but much more to make a point.

So, I guess that just offends me a bit and that is why I lack sympathy.

I'm sorry, but this is also nonsense. Who are you to say whether it is a good use of Martin Porter's time? I think that's up to him to judge, not you. He's not costing you anything - let him decide what he wants to pursue.

Well, it's my opinion...so in a good position to judge it

And justify your second point, please.

Sure thing - which is that though?

 

[magnatom]

Thomas' point is similar to one I made earlier, and I think this is an important issue. Remember Thomas and I are cyclists who both have a keen interest in improving the safety of ourselves and other cyclists (and other road users). Despite this, we have some reservations about this clip. Not that he is wrong, but that it just isn't the best clip to highlight if you want to win over the publics hearts. And yes, I think it is hearts, not heads that we have to win over. Road rage, the right to road space, etc are all very emotive subjects and very rarely does the brain rule the heart in 'road incidents' (in general). Therefore, if we are bringing the publics attention to a cyclists plight, it needs to be a no-brainer, one where the heart instantly 'feels' for the cyclist and not the other road user.

In this incident the threat is not obvious (to Joe Public), the intent is not obvious, and the cyclists reaction is not perfect (chasing down someone, which I have done, does not win hearts). If it went to court I fear that the public 'heart' would be with the driver.

Now anyone who engages brain can see that the driver is a muppet at best, but that isn't good enough to make the intended impact.

Of course as Origamist pointed out, we shouldn't wait for the 'right incident' to come along, but there are ways to use someone like Martin's talent, i.e. helping others fight their cases etc.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

I don't feel this cyclist is pursuing this because he actually felt his life was at risk, but much more to make a point. So, I guess that just offends me a bit and that is why I lack sympathy.

This is the nub of it - why don't you think he felt endangered at the moment the driver was moving at speed beside him, and threatening to kill him?

Sure thing - which is that though?

That you don't think this will do anything to make cyclists safer.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Despite this, we have some reservations about this clip. Not that he is wrong, but that it just isn't the best clip to highlight if you want to win over the publics hearts. And yes, I think it is hearts, not heads that we have to win over. Road rage, the right to road space, etc are all very emotive subjects and very rarely does the brain rule the heart in 'road incidents' (in general). Therefore, if we are bringing the publics attention to a cyclists plight, it needs to be a no-brainer, one where the heart instantly 'feels' for the cyclist and not the other road user.

What is Martin Porter supposed to do? Wait until someone actually seriously injures him, and then pursue that case?

Of course, you point out yourself that this is ridiculous. But I think you've defeated your own argument. Why should he be prevented from dealing with this in the manner of his choosing, because it doesn't meet some arbitrarily chosen threshold of seriousness?

but there are ways to use someone like Martin's talent, i.e. helping others fight their cases etc.

That is precisely what he does do. He represented the family of Marie Vesco, for instance.

Why his campaigning and work in other areas should stop him from pursuing this case is beyond me.

Frankly I'm astonished that such a seasoned cycling campaigner who has done - and is doing - so much for the safety of cyclists is coming in for this kind of criticism.


Edit - fonts awry.

 

[thomas]

Thomas' point is similar to one I made earlier, and I think this is an important issue. Remember Thomas and I are cyclists who both have a keen interest in improving the safety of ourselves and other cyclists (and other road users). Despite this, we have some reservations about this clip. Not that he is wrong, but that it just isn't the best clip to highlight if you want to win over the publics hearts. And yes, I think it is hearts, not heads that we have to win over. Road rage, the right to road space, etc are all very emotive subjects and very rarely does the brain rule the heart in 'road incidents' (in general). Therefore, if we are bringing the publics attention to a cyclists plight, it needs to be a no-brainer, one where the heart instantly 'feels' for the cyclist and not the other road user.

In this incident the threat is not obvious (to Joe Public), the intent is not obvious, and the cyclists reaction is not perfect (chasing down someone, which I have done, does not win hearts). If it went to court I fear that the public 'heart' would be with the driver.

Now anyone who engages brain can see that the driver is a muppet at best, but that isn't good enough to make the intended impact.

Of course as Origamist pointed out, we shouldn't wait for the 'right incident' to come along, but there are ways to use someone like Martin's talent, i.e. helping others fight their cases etc.

Thanks mags. I'd completely agree with that.

This is the nub of it - why don't you think he felt endangered at the moment the driver was moving at speed beside him, and threatening to kill him?

That you don't think this will do anything to make cyclists safer.

Pretty much what Mags has said.

Most drivers will have limited, or no sympathy for what happened in the clip above. Most people probably would think that it would be a waste of the courts time. This in turn could give a negative view of cycling, which doesn't help.

More recently I saw an article about the death of a cyclist and the driver getting 7 years. Having known nothing of the case I thought that was quite good and while obviously the death is tragic wasn't a bad sentence.

I then however read an article on what had happened, etc, and read about the driver's convictions...being drunk, on the phone, etc...and then read about the lady's death. Being comforted by a passer by while mangled underneath the lorry. This really, really sent a shock through my spine....and to be honest, only a tiny minority wouldn't be sympathetic there or agree that 7 years really isn't that long. Therefore that type of article is much more likely to move hearts and minds.

I remember probably a year or so ago now, on the radio someone lost their job because they cut up a cyclist. Cyclist complained, the company had in-car footage and fired the driver. I also remember the cyclist sounding quite hostel. Now, as a cyclist I could imagine what happened and be sympathetic, even if the guy didn't have a radio personality. However, my Dad, due to the guy's attitude wasn't so.

I feel that this cycling lawyer isn't going to get the sympathy of motorists and therefore won't make the roads safer.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Thomas, you haven't answered my question -

This is the nub of it - why don't you think he felt endangered at the moment the driver was moving at speed beside him, and threatening to kill him?

 

[magnatom]

Oh come on WGF, why are you surprised that he gets criticised? I'm sure he isn't. In fact I think it is absolutely vital that he is. I know I am glad of the critcism that I receive (constructive of course!). It keeps check on what we do, it represents all points of view, it encourages us to think of how others perceive us.

It is very easy for us all to become so focussed on what we want to achieve that we forget the bigger picture. Now I am not saying that Martin has here, but I think for those who have reservations, and I am not alone, to raise them. This is no way critical of his other work, or of his general approach.

As for why he should not be allowed to pursue this particular case....no one is saying he can't. All I am saying is that I can see the flaws with this particular video and how it could be misinterperated by those that it is aimed at.

If there is one thing I am acutely aware of, it is the effect that videos can have on 'the public' if there is any perception of the victim being at fault....

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

More recently I saw an article about the death of a cyclist and the driver getting 7 years. Having known nothing of the case I thought that was quite good and while obviously the death is tragic wasn't a bad sentence.

I then however read an article on what had happened, etc, and read about the driver's convictions...being drunk, on the phone, etc...and then read about the lady's death. Being comforted by a passer by while mangled underneath the lorry. This really, really sent a shock through my spine....and to be honest, only a tiny minority wouldn't be sympathetic there or agree that 7 years really isn't that long. Therefore that type of article is much more likely to move hearts and minds.

So presumably we should encourage more young lady cyclists to hang around HGV drivers who are drunk?

/sarcasm

In all seriousness, I don't think Martin Porter is in a position to control how other cyclists get killed or injured, and how their deaths are reported.

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

Oh come on WGF, why are you surprised that he gets criticised?

Oh, I'm not surprised that he is being criticized - it is the extent, and nature of it, that is surprising me. Head over to bikeradar if you doubt me.

As for why he should not be allowed to pursue this particular case....no one is saying he can't.

No, but you are implying - strongly implying - that he shouldn't, and that he has better things to be doing. How else am I to read this kind of comment?

If there is one thing I am acutely aware of, it is the effect that videos can have on 'the public' if there is any perception of the victim being at fault....

That is - Martin Porter should think about the effect he is having on the public perception of "uppity" cyclists.

 

[thomas]

Thomas, you haven't answered my question -

Sorry.

I don't feel he felt endangered, because if he did he would have stopped and let the guy pass. All he does is tell the guy to go past because he can't hear him 'over the sound of his engine'.

As I said before, if he felt it was a serious threat he should have phoned the Police. If someone threatened to kill me and I believed it I would also cycle a different way home, or at least try to avoid the car as best I could. This doesn't seem to be the case in the video.

His reaction to the poor driving seems to be much more "Ah, he threatened to kill me...and that's an offence! Let's make sure I have it on film so I can cause a fuss".

So presumably we should encourage more young lady cyclists to hang around HGV drivers who are drunk?
/sarcasm


In all seriousness, I don't think Martin Porter is in a position to control how other cyclists get killed or injured, and how their deaths are reported.

That's in very poor taste to be honest.

If there is one thing I am acutely aware of, it is the effect that videos can have on 'the public' if there is any perception of the victim being at fault....

I think most helmet camera videos are really, by cyclists for cyclists. Or at least people with a similar type mindset. Helmet camera footage, on the whole, isn't going to change 'hearts and minds'.


If I look at my own videos, there are some where my reaction may seem OTT (some where it probably was!). Now to a non-cyclist, or non-helmet-camera-mindset-person (lol) I'd get no sympathy and the video wouldn't help any cycling case.