Video: Police release footage highlighting danger of cyclists' car-swerving ‘game’

scouser_andy wrote:

This is a different perspective of what the kids are doing; it's the only piece on this 'game' that actually tries to understand them, rather than just tell them off.

 

Telling them off ain't gonna work btw...

http://www.huckmagazine.com/ride/bikes/bikestormz-movement-cycling-bikel...

thanks for this, it's very interesting. I see a lot of these Bikestormz. I didn't know they had a name, I've thought of them and described them as bike swarms, or something like Critical Mass, which the article also refers to. Also rather like the mass motorcycle gangs of the 60s, or the Mods, making those of a nervous disposition clutch their pearls and call for military service and the return of hanging because they're being inconvenienced briefly in their Austins.

ConcordeCX wrote:

scouser_andy wrote:

This is a different perspective of what the kids are doing; it's the only piece on this 'game' that actually tries to understand them, rather than just tell them off.

 

Telling them off ain't gonna work btw...

http://www.huckmagazine.com/ride/bikes/bikestormz-movement-cycling-bikel...

thanks for this, it's very interesting. I see a lot of these Bikestormz. I didn't know they had a name, I've thought of them and described them as bike swarms, or something like Critical Mass, which the article also refers to. Also rather like the mass motorcycle gangs of the 60s, or the Mods, making those of a nervous disposition clutch their pearls and call for military service and the return of hanging because they're being inconvenienced briefly in their Austins.

It's always good to be able to read beyond the headline and see the underlying story.

Bluebug wrote:

A few of them run over by a van, taxi, bus or full laden car will though.

That's not what the article seems to imply:

Quote:

This time, he’s fine. But so far Jake has fractured two ribs, had internal bleeding, broken three teeth and needed 14 stitches for a head injury. Not long after we meet, he will snap his collarbone and put himself out of action for a month. Wouldn’t most people have considered stopping by this point? “I don’t care; I just see it as another story to tell,” he says, flashing a cheeky smile.

“I like the scars. I can’t lie: it just makes me want to go faster.”

Some will wear their scars as badges of honour. It's possible being featured in a near 7-minute video produced by Hertfordshire Constabulary has earned Paul Belcher some misplaced kudos (though having his mum featured may have undone all of that).

While I'd agree that being killed or so seriously injured so as to prevent them getting on a bike again would put a stop to their behaviour (on an individual level), it is not the responsibility of the driver to hasten this outcome.

scouser_andy wrote:

This is a different perspective of what the kids are doing; it's the only piece on this 'game' that actually tries to understand them, rather than just tell them off.

 

Telling them off ain't gonna work btw...

 

http://www.huckmagazine.com/ride/bikes/bikestormz-movement-cycling-bikel...

 

A few of them run over by a van, taxi, bus or full laden car will though.

The last load of teenagers who learnt the hard way are now adults. They use to play a game where they would suddenly decide to cross the road in front of a vehicle so the vehicle had to do an emergency stop,   they would then proceed to walk really really slowly across the road. Unfortunately a few of them decided doing it in front of  a bus or van was a good idea but found that they got run over.

Oh and gangs of teenagers in London and other UK cities are scary as historically they have used the cover of being in a gang to steal things including bikes.

On a wet Monday morning, reading the comments of mouth breathers jumping on a moral panic about - Horror! Kids Pulling Wheelies On Roads! has cheered me up no end, and made me thankful that my adolescence never overlapped for long with such joyless, narrow-minded saps.

Much appreciated - thanks.

ps Don - loving your work on this thread.

scouser_andy wrote:

This is a different perspective of what the kids are doing; it's the only piece on this 'game' that actually tries to understand them, rather than just tell them off.

 

Telling them off ain't gonna work btw...

 

http://www.huckmagazine.com/ride/bikes/bikestormz-movement-cycling-bikel...

 

Thanks for that, I'll have a proper read later. Very insightful.

don simon wrote:

scouser_andy wrote:

This is a different perspective of what the kids are doing; it's the only piece on this 'game' that actually tries to understand them, rather than just tell them off.

Telling them off ain't gonna work btw...

http://www.huckmagazine.com/ride/bikes/bikestormz-movement-cycling-bikel...

Thanks for that, I'll have a proper read later. Very insightful.

Very insightful indeed. I think "Knives Down Bikes Up" is a slogan we can (hopefully) all agree on.

I see a lot of this near where I work (Wythenshawe) which is one of the most deprived areas in Manchester - in fact in the country.  Pulling idiotic wheelie stunts is definitely better than puling a knife (or a baseball bat  - see link below) on somebody.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/tee...

That said, it seems a fairly popular stunt in more affluent neighbourhoods too.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I don’t understand why the motorist is being given a hard time here. I think I would be incredulous in the face of such reckless cycling. It’s not beyond the wit of most reasonable people to expect that a normal person will take the precautions necessary for their own safety, especially if they are a vulnerable road user.

if pedestrians started throwing themselves in front of your bike like lemmings you’d likely hit them unless you took the precaution of slowly cycling or breaking at the sight of one - which in a busy London Street would get you precisely nowhere. You’d no longer be a cyclist then.

the rules are there to protect road users. The car, as much as you don’t like it, has a ‘right of way’ and should not be held hostage to any other road user.

i doubt very much that the car driver wanted their car damaged, and even less to hurt the cyclist. I would guess that they did slow their car, but couldn’t quite believe what was happening.

yeah, you need to read the Highway Code again.

“The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.” 

Did the motorist follow this or not ?

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I don’t understand why the motorist is being given a hard time here. I think I would be incredulous in the face of such reckless cycling. It’s not beyond the wit of most reasonable people to expect that a normal person will take the precautions necessary for their own safety, especially if they are a vulnerable road user.

if pedestrians started throwing themselves in front of your bike like lemmings you’d likely hit them unless you took the precaution of slowly cycling or breaking at the sight of one - which in a busy London Street would get you precisely nowhere. You’d no longer be a cyclist then.

the rules are there to protect road users. The car, as much as you don’t like it, has a ‘right of way’ and should not be held hostage to any other road user.

i doubt very much that the car driver wanted their car damaged, and even less to hurt the cyclist. I would guess that they did slow their car, but couldn’t quite believe what was happening.

It's far from clear to me how the driver's behaviour was any better than Alliston's. So why shouldn't they be subject to the same criticism, and indeed prosecution? 

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

if pedestrians started throwing themselves in front of your bike like lemmings you’d likely hit them unless you took the precaution of slowly cycling or breaking at the sight of one - which in a busy London Street would get you precisely nowhere. You’d no longer be a cyclist then.

the rules are there to protect road users. The car, as much as you don’t like it, has a ‘right of way’ and should not be held hostage to any other road user.

i doubt very much that the car driver wanted their car damaged, and even less to hurt the cyclist. I would guess that they did slow their car, but couldn’t quite believe what was happening.

Your comment unavoidably brings to mind the Aliston case, though.  Where's the police reconstruction to estimate car braking distances in this one?

The main difference [other than the seriousness of the outcome of course] seems to be what was in the mind of the vulnerable road-user - the deliberate  stupidity of a young male vs the distracted multi-tasking of an adult.  I'm not sure how important that difference is.

No Sweat wrote:

I don't see how anyone could condone the reckless behaviour of these, clearly feral, kids.

Yet so many on this forum appear to be solely blaming the driver for the collision. I have seen no more of the footage than is included on this page, so I have no idea whether we saw the start of the encounter with this gang of youths, or whether there had also been other earlier intimidation. We also cannot see what is happening behind the view point of the camera (which was being carried by another member of the gang). Were there other riders behind the holder of the camera? If there were, what were they doing, and where were they on the road?

It has been suggested that the driver was culpable because they did not stop sooner, and also appeared to turn to the centre of the road at the last moment as the collison occured. The camera angle is not helpful, but it seems to me that the rider of the bike was close to the kerb for much of the clip and veered suddenly (out of control apparently) to his left towards the centre of the road, at the same time as the motorist, who was then left with no other course to avoid the collision.

Why did the motorist slow down, but not stop? I don't know, although in similar circumstances, if it looked initially as if the oncoming bike was going to pass by on the near-side, then I might be reluctant to come to a complete halt amongst a gang of apparently lawless thugs, unless I absolutely had to.

I hope I'm never put in such a situation.

So, not much there then apart from prejudice.

If you are reluctant to come to a complete halt (stop is much easier to say), then I suggest that you hand your licence in immediately. it is not your job as a driver to choose who you do or don't run over based on your prejudices or fears.

don simon wrote:

No Sweat wrote:

I don't see how anyone could condone the reckless behaviour of these, clearly feral, kids.

Yet so many on this forum appear to be solely blaming the driver for the collision. I have seen no more of the footage than is included on this page, so I have no idea whether we saw the start of the encounter with this gang of youths, or whether there had also been other earlier intimidation. We also cannot see what is happening behind the view point of the camera (which was being carried by another member of the gang). Were there other riders behind the holder of the camera? If there were, what were they doing, and where were they on the road?

It has been suggested that the driver was culpable because they did not stop sooner, and also appeared to turn to the centre of the road at the last moment as the collison occured. The camera angle is not helpful, but it seems to me that the rider of the bike was close to the kerb for much of the clip and veered suddenly (out of control apparently) to his left towards the centre of the road, at the same time as the motorist, who was then left with no other course to avoid the collision.

Why did the motorist slow down, but not stop? I don't know, although in similar circumstances, if it looked initially as if the oncoming bike was going to pass by on the near-side, then I might be reluctant to come to a complete halt amongst a gang of apparently lawless thugs, unless I absolutely had to.

I hope I'm never put in such a situation.

So, not much there then apart from prejudice.

If you are reluctant to come to a complete halt (stop is much easier to say), then I suggest that you hand your licence in immediately. it is not your job as a driver to choose who you do or don't run over based on your prejudices or fears.

don simon, you forgot to highlight the references to the lads being part of a gang.

No Sweat, I haven't seen anyone 'solely blaming the driver for the collision', though they have held the driver responsible for their part in the collision, or more accurately failing to prevent it. Only one of the two vehicles involved in the collision has the potential to cause real harm to the occupant of the other. Regardless of the actions of the cyclist, the driver had a responsibility to not collide with them if possible. Even given the limited footage, it seems clear that stopping much sooner would have prevented a collision, or at least minimised the risk. The driver for whatever reason chose not to do this.

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

don simon wrote:

No Sweat wrote:

I don't see how anyone could condone the reckless behaviour of these, clearly feral, kids.

Yet so many on this forum appear to be solely blaming the driver for the collision. I have seen no more of the footage than is included on this page, so I have no idea whether we saw the start of the encounter with this gang of youths, or whether there had also been other earlier intimidation. We also cannot see what is happening behind the view point of the camera (which was being carried by another member of the gang). Were there other riders behind the holder of the camera? If there were, what were they doing, and where were they on the road?

It has been suggested that the driver was culpable because they did not stop sooner, and also appeared to turn to the centre of the road at the last moment as the collison occured. The camera angle is not helpful, but it seems to me that the rider of the bike was close to the kerb for much of the clip and veered suddenly (out of control apparently) to his left towards the centre of the road, at the same time as the motorist, who was then left with no other course to avoid the collision.

Why did the motorist slow down, but not stop? I don't know, although in similar circumstances, if it looked initially as if the oncoming bike was going to pass by on the near-side, then I might be reluctant to come to a complete halt amongst a gang of apparently lawless thugs, unless I absolutely had to.

I hope I'm never put in such a situation.

So, not much there then apart from prejudice.

If you are reluctant to come to a complete halt (stop is much easier to say), then I suggest that you hand your licence in immediately. it is not your job as a driver to choose who you do or don't run over based on your prejudices or fears.

don simon, you forgot to highlight the references to the lads being part of a gang. No Sweat, I haven't seen anyone 'solely blaming the driver for the collision', though they have held the driver responsible for their part in the collision, or more accurately failing to prevent it. Only one of the two vehicles involved in the collision has the potential to cause real harm to the occupant of the other. Regardless of the actions of the cyclist, the driver had a responsibility to not collide with them if possible. Even given the limited footage, it seems clear that stopping much sooner would have prevented a collision, or at least minimised the risk. The driver for whatever reason chose not to do this.

I decided that gang was ambiguous enough to be left out, but yes, maybe you're right.

The driver was probaly a fellow Daily Mail reader, like no sweat, and was in fear for their life having read about the wild streets that are roamed by feral kids.

The fine upstanding lady (she was going to the theatre) that recently drove into me, once confronted about it, called me "people like you", she couldn't tell me what it meant. Perhaps no sweat could.

don simon wrote:

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

don simon wrote:

No Sweat wrote:

I don't see how anyone could condone the reckless behaviour of these, clearly feral, kids.

Yet so many on this forum appear to be solely blaming the driver for the collision. I have seen no more of the footage than is included on this page, so I have no idea whether we saw the start of the encounter with this gang of youths, or whether there had also been other earlier intimidation. We also cannot see what is happening behind the view point of the camera (which was being carried by another member of the gang). Were there other riders behind the holder of the camera? If there were, what were they doing, and where were they on the road?

It has been suggested that the driver was culpable because they did not stop sooner, and also appeared to turn to the centre of the road at the last moment as the collison occured. The camera angle is not helpful, but it seems to me that the rider of the bike was close to the kerb for much of the clip and veered suddenly (out of control apparently) to his left towards the centre of the road, at the same time as the motorist, who was then left with no other course to avoid the collision.

Why did the motorist slow down, but not stop? I don't know, although in similar circumstances, if it looked initially as if the oncoming bike was going to pass by on the near-side, then I might be reluctant to come to a complete halt amongst a gang of apparently lawless thugs, unless I absolutely had to.

I hope I'm never put in such a situation.

So, not much there then apart from prejudice.

If you are reluctant to come to a complete halt (stop is much easier to say), then I suggest that you hand your licence in immediately. it is not your job as a driver to choose who you do or don't run over based on your prejudices or fears.

don simon, you forgot to highlight the references to the lads being part of a gang. No Sweat, I haven't seen anyone 'solely blaming the driver for the collision', though they have held the driver responsible for their part in the collision, or more accurately failing to prevent it. Only one of the two vehicles involved in the collision has the potential to cause real harm to the occupant of the other. Regardless of the actions of the cyclist, the driver had a responsibility to not collide with them if possible. Even given the limited footage, it seems clear that stopping much sooner would have prevented a collision, or at least minimised the risk. The driver for whatever reason chose not to do this.

I decided that gang was ambiguous enough to be left out, but yes, maybe you're right.

The driver was probaly a fellow Daily Mail reader, like no sweat, and was in fear for their life having read about the wild streets that are roamed by feral kids.

The fine upstanding lady (she was going to the theatre) that recently drove into me, once confronted about it, called me "people like you", she couldn't tell me what it meant. Perhaps no sweat could.

I don't think we've ever met, how would I know?

No Sweat wrote:

don simon wrote:

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

don simon wrote:

No Sweat wrote:

I don't see how anyone could condone the reckless behaviour of these, clearly feral, kids.

Yet so many on this forum appear to be solely blaming the driver for the collision. I have seen no more of the footage than is included on this page, so I have no idea whether we saw the start of the encounter with this gang of youths, or whether there had also been other earlier intimidation. We also cannot see what is happening behind the view point of the camera (which was being carried by another member of the gang). Were there other riders behind the holder of the camera? If there were, what were they doing, and where were they on the road?

It has been suggested that the driver was culpable because they did not stop sooner, and also appeared to turn to the centre of the road at the last moment as the collison occured. The camera angle is not helpful, but it seems to me that the rider of the bike was close to the kerb for much of the clip and veered suddenly (out of control apparently) to his left towards the centre of the road, at the same time as the motorist, who was then left with no other course to avoid the collision.

Why did the motorist slow down, but not stop? I don't know, although in similar circumstances, if it looked initially as if the oncoming bike was going to pass by on the near-side, then I might be reluctant to come to a complete halt amongst a gang of apparently lawless thugs, unless I absolutely had to.

I hope I'm never put in such a situation.

So, not much there then apart from prejudice.

If you are reluctant to come to a complete halt (stop is much easier to say), then I suggest that you hand your licence in immediately. it is not your job as a driver to choose who you do or don't run over based on your prejudices or fears.

don simon, you forgot to highlight the references to the lads being part of a gang. No Sweat, I haven't seen anyone 'solely blaming the driver for the collision', though they have held the driver responsible for their part in the collision, or more accurately failing to prevent it. Only one of the two vehicles involved in the collision has the potential to cause real harm to the occupant of the other. Regardless of the actions of the cyclist, the driver had a responsibility to not collide with them if possible. Even given the limited footage, it seems clear that stopping much sooner would have prevented a collision, or at least minimised the risk. The driver for whatever reason chose not to do this.

I decided that gang was ambiguous enough to be left out, but yes, maybe you're right.

The driver was probaly a fellow Daily Mail reader, like no sweat, and was in fear for their life having read about the wild streets that are roamed by feral kids.

The fine upstanding lady (she was going to the theatre) that recently drove into me, once confronted about it, called me "people like you", she couldn't tell me what it meant. Perhaps no sweat could.

I don't think we've ever met, how would I know?

My apologies, I wasn't aware that you'd met the kids in the video.

No Sweat wrote:

Yet so many on this forum appear to be solely blaming the driver for the collision.

Alas, as much as I enjoy road.cc, it has to be said that many here are so completely biased in their view that the cyclist is never at fault.

bikeman01 wrote:

No Sweat wrote:

Yet so many on this forum appear to be solely blaming the driver for the collision.

Alas, as much as I enjoy road.cc, it has to be said that many here are so completely biased in their view that the cyclist is never at fault.

I think the issue has less to do with the alleged bias of myself and the other commenters and more to do with your ability to read what we have written and view this objectively.

The driver had other, safer options. Either through choice or incompetence, they didn't take those other options and in doing so they bear some (by no stretch, all) of the responsibility for the collision.

The kids were wrong and put themselves in a dangerous situation but that in no way means they deserve to be killed or seriously injured as some have suggested and it doesn't mean this or any other driver is entitled to ignore their obligation to avoid a collision in order to deliver their own brand of 'justice'.

bikeman01 wrote:

No Sweat wrote:

Yet so many on this forum appear to be solely blaming the driver for the collision.

Alas, as much as I enjoy road.cc, it has to be said that many here are so completely biased in their view that the cyclist is never at fault.

Absence of bias looks like bias to those whose own bias is so deeply-rooted they aren't aware of it.

ktache wrote:

Killer driver Helen Measures

ktache wrote:

Killer driver Helen Measures

Thanks.