Driver who threatened to kill cycling lawyer puts case to road.cc, but is it the truth? (+ video)

'..so called Lawyer'
Is he not then a lawyer? Crikey. The plot grows thicker.

Hey Alex, it's great to come on here and share thoughts with like minded people. Thanks for the tip about the decaf. I actually always enjoy a nice cup of decaf before I head out onto the roads so that I don't get all jumpity and looking around the place. Yes these youngsters who make a fuss about being run into or abused or attacked just do not know how lucky they are. I mean when I was young..we could chat on for hours! Still if the odd car nudges you that's really a mark of respect, trusting each other's skills like you were teammates in the peloton, eh? Good to just shake hands and smile isn't it. No need to trouble our hard pressed police with such stuff. So good that between us we have sorted out this whole business of 'Driver who threatened to kill cycling lawyer puts case to road.cc, but is it the truth?' Apparently the hard pressed police thought it was and warned Mr Uppity Cycling so called Lawyer that if he continued to be annoying they might pursue the nice motorist's allegations against him. Great minds think alike, eh? Nev

Really! Surely everybody knows the way to get on with motorists is to be nice to them, very understanding of their problems in controlling cars and their having little accidents involving cyclists or losing their tempers at us. The burden is well and truly on the cyclist to ‘win their respect’. What we really need is a hard crackdown on annoying cyclists. ‘Stop on Red’ is obviously nowhere near enough as it ignores all those annoying traits that cause hard pressed motorists to lose their tempers with us.
This cyclist, as has been noted, should be dealt with for annoyingly frequent rear observations, which look as though they could almost be designed to cause eye contact with an approaching driver and distract them from all that important stuff they are doing. It is hard enough to cruise along in excess of the speed limit with all those traffic islands and stuff without some cyclist drawing attention to himself and expecting a driver to react. This driver very kindly and graciously did react, as he says, by not actually running the cyclist down. I mean what more can you expect? The rest was just a reminder (perhaps in slightly colourful language to get the point across) that he might not be so kind and bother to react to the cyclist’s presence next time.
Obviously the offence of annoying rear observation is aggravated when it precedes movement from a secondary to a primary position (or swerving as our motoring friends so understandably call it). It is obvious is it not that a passing motorist, just like us, is entitled to expect a cyclist to go in a dead straight line out of the way of motor traffic? Drifting into the field of view of a motorist is just childish attention seeking. How he manages to time his backward glances or sideways movements so as not to run into things defies all explanation. Note that the cyclist suspiciously fails to aim his camera at the road surface to reveal how beautifully smooth and free of glass or debris such roads always are.
Surely it ought to be a criminal offence to annoy motorists by cycling without due coordination. I thought I heard a metallic sort of sound that was suspiciously like his cranks snapping under the strain of his left leg running a different cadence to his right. I am not saying it definitely was that, mind; only one person knows the truth about that and he has suspiciously not commented and has averted his helmet camera throughout from his legs.
Annoying attention seeking, annoying lack of coordination, annoying observations, annoying positioning, annoying speed and annoying respiration are all detected by many careful observers here and obviously this important detection has distracted us from the pretty unimportant business of whether what the motorist said to the police about the incident is strictly accurate in every particular. The broad thrust of it all was that the cyclist was annoying and we plainly cannot expect our hard pressed police to take action if one threatens to kill an annoying person.
Whenever this so called lawyer posts anything anywhere I follow him about and I award myself one point if I can point out that he has been annoying and 2 points if I can invent some law that he has broken (he’s a so called lawyer, gettit!). I think someone came close with causing a motor vehicle to overtake twice, by filtering by when that vehicle is stationary. I mean it is bad enough if a motorist has to pass him once, but no motorist can be expected to keep his cool if he has to overtake him again. Surely too it is ‘aggravated filtering’ if he goes by stationary vehicles into one of those ridiculous boxes with a cycle painted on it which any fool knows are to give speeding motorists extra time to stop if they spot a traffic camera or officer at the lights.
Sadly though some know-it-all will suspect that is not actually (yet) an offence. I prefer something more obscure like blowing his nose in the area controlled by a puffin crossing contrary to the Puffin Regulations 1948. Then any passing observer will think, ‘aha, gottya and you a lawyer too’.
What though is most annoying is that he has a camera; this makes it so difficult for our hard pressed police to respond to the driver’s allegations of name calling by arresting the cyclist and throwing the book at him, which is naturally the thing to do in these cases and is the proper use of police resources. This would make the cyclist get the lesson he so obviously needs and hopefully blight his career. It would of course be most unfair to prosecute the driver, enforcing the law of the land against motorists is really not the solution to anything. Remember the answer is to be nice to them at all times whatever they do. It would be most unfair if he were to get any kind of criminal record as this could be misconstrued in the event that he were at some point to suffer the personal misfortune of running a cyclist over.
The solution is to set up the Tribunal for Annoying Cyclists. It could punish cyclists for all the annoying infractions set out above or if none of them stick, for being a t*t. It should be chaired by Jeremy Clarkson and manned by nominees from the AA, RAC and RHA. One of the posters on this site might be allowed to attend meetings as the cycling representative; obviously in a non-voting capacity and on condition he apologises at the outset of every meeting for belonging to a class of people, some of whom run red lights. He should remind the committee from time to time how easy it is to avoid being annoying to motorists. That would put annoying cyclists in their place and finally shut them up.

About the head turning: it is only a problem if it leads to bad tracking. It's just like checking the rear view mirror regularly; a good idea.

Drop the opposite shoulder to compensate for the shift in balance ( works for me ) or actually get a mirror.

Why ignore segregated cycle lanes when they were available? And why ride down the centre of the road BETWEEN TRAFFIC?

threading in and around traffic dooms us all to further abuse by maniacs and bullies. get your thrills off road, otherwise, slow down and stop flaunting your "freedom from the shackles of suckerdom" in the washed out faces of the exasperated masses. it's bound to ellicit a negative response.

chat back is obviously seen by some as provocation. don't take the bait next time some drop kick talks sh!t.

have you never seen an episode of kung-fu?

I blame Clarkson for this.

People who us 'of' when they should be using 'have' (i.e 'should of' instead of 'should have') wind me up...

The simple fact of the matter is that it all could of been avoided if the driver had assessed the road ahead and waited a coupled of seconds to clear the traffic island. No issue with the cyclist moving out into the primary position at the traffic island either, motor vehicles are required to overtake cyclists leaving the same amount of room as if they are overtaking another car. Thats not possible through a traffic island so the driver should have waited. Not saying I agree with some of the riding either at times (filtering past one or two cars at roundabouts and lights just for them to have to overtake you again straight away, sure fire way to irritate drivers.)Unfortunatly the driver couldn't seem to let it go and had to have another dig everytime he passed, just get over it buddy. Admit you made an error of judgement and just continue with your journey then you won't look such a kn0bhead
The roads are too crowded and we're going to have confrontations mostly due to differing opinions on where a cyclist should be riding. Ride smooth and make your intentions clear well in advance and hopefully we can all get on. As for prosecuting for threatening to kill him, pointless. We've all made hollow threats in our lifetime so just ignore it.

First thing I want to point out: The driver admitted on video that he had threatened to kill the rider. He didn't specify how but that's not really the point. There is a threat against someones life and the Police (at the very least) have a duty to act on that.

Secondly: There's no getting away from the fact that the rider is looking over his shoulder an awful lot and can be seen drifting to the right a number of times when he does so. I ride in heavy traffic with commercial vehicles and even though some of them seem oblivious to me I'm not looking over my shoulder anywhere near that much. Your bike tends to go where you're looking, nothing we can do to alter that fact and I'd love to see footage of that rider from behind to see how much he wobbles from his constant looks over his shoulder. I think it's a testament to the general ability of car drivers that he wasn't honked at or crowded more than he was.

A couple of general points: After the initial confrontation at the island the rider obviously increases his speed, I can only assume in an attempt to catch up with the car in question. He's already recorded a 'dangerous' driver and stated the registration number. What purpose is served by this?

When he does catch up with the car and moves over to the right there is a definite nose clearing moment. I'm not saying this was directed at the car or driver, there's only two people who would know that but it's certainly enough to make me slightly suspicious.

As far as I can see the only thing the driver should be questioned / cautioned over is his threat to kill. He didn't crowd the rider (that we saw), he didn't put him in immediate danger and he didn't do anything to block his progress. Abusive language isn't to be condoned and the threats definitely aren't acceptable but I think to make a Court case out of this would have served nobody.

I think too many people are over complicating this particular incident.

1 - The car driver had plenty of opportunity to pass on a number of occasions. That said, he is 'stuck' in traffic and was never likely to move too far ahead of Mr Porter.

2 - As a daily commuter on urbam roads I see little wrong with Mr Porters cycling. In my opinion he dominates his space perfectly well. the majority of the time he is moving at the same pace as the traffic so why not move into the middle of the lane? When the traffic does speed up, he moves over - Fine.

3 - I've seen a number of Mr Porters video clips and they suggest that he does not overly look behind. May I suggest that in this video he looks behind a lot because a) he was doing so when changing lanes and B) he knew that this particular driver was behind him, probably tailgating him. Any cyclist would find this uncomfortable.

One thing strikes me here. Traffic tantrums are increasingly common, there is so much traffic on the roads nowadays that driving is an exercise in frustration. If both parties in this exchange lose their rag, there is a massive disparity in the danger they pose each other.

I've been shouted at for not cowering in the gutter through width restrictions, and the next day I see the same car, and the day after I see it again... what happens if one day the driver decides to give the uppity cyclist a lesson by passing a bit close? That happens. What happens if the driver misjudges it? Who winds up injured? Not the driver, that's for sure.

Encounters like this are a big part of what puts even keen cyclists off commuting by bike. Every day you'll encounter thousands of cars, many of them day after day. Any assertiveness risks an inappropriate reaction. That's why these incidents are scary even for a confident cyclist, that's why it's a big deal even if no actual malice was intended. That's why the police should take it seriously and at least have a quiet word.

Im sorry, but after watching footage I have to say as a cyclist 1st, motorist,and scooterist that "cycling silk" is a bit of a t*t . I would suggest that his constant glancing over his right shoulder is a good indicator of a nervous and slightly uncoordinated cyclist almost looking for trouble. As verbally aggressive as the driver was I agree with the police point of view, no case to answer.
Leave your cameras at home, take your gps of your bikes and your heart rate monitors and just ride your bikes and understand that a half ton metal boxes will always hurt you more!!

When drivers have commented on videos on YouTube they do seem to make claims despite evidence show in the video.
This driver clearly admits in the video threatening to kill, then claims later at road.cc he didn't really threaten him.
I also like his defition of 'a touch over 30'.

It's a slightly odd username as the police haven't proven anything, they just haven't charged him

I'm also not sure why some people think that people who cycle with helmet cams want to provoke drivers. Most of us purely capture what happens anyway, there is so much bad driving on the roads.

a can of worms no doubt.

but it is clear to me that the driver of the after factory modified car was rather aggressive in his attitude towards the rider.
but also noted the apparent lack or road skills of the cyclist. just how many times did he turn his head whilst riding a straight road? and hestayed in the centre of the road fartoo long when riding with the traffic after the initial "contact". a sure why to further irritate an already stressed driver.

i have to also agree with the others comments regarding the type of cyclist who wears a headcam to do a commute. almost "trapping" drivers when thy get them sligtly angry.

I dont have much sympathy for either party if i am honest.
its a culture thing....and cyclist are not going to change the UK attitude for a long time...and especially not if this is how we try to go about it.

Can the country really afford to prosecute every case like this?

I have to say I think I have problems with both parties in this instance. To be fair only one of the parties was in a position to cause injury or worse to the other party I do wonder about the originator and his motives for riding with a camera on.

I hope both parties have learned from the experience and lest leave it at that.

Pretty familiar behaviour. The car driver's in such a hurry he crowds a cyclist dangerously at a traffic island but then finds time to slow down for verbals and then sits in a queue further up the road. Time saved on his journey? Zilch.

The driver mentions going over the speed limit of 30mph which I feel is key to this argument. Come on now. Be honest. We all creep above 30 mph much of the time - and as cyclists we all slow down again when we see a fellow cyclist ahead. The problem is the non cyclists who are nudging 40mph as a matter of course on suburban roads. Reaction times are shortened as a result and they then react by blaming the object in their path.

If the speed limit in urban areas was dropped to 20mph and enforced it would calm everyone down and probably get more people on bikes. I know - it feels slowww to travel at 20mph in a car but it's certainly more civilised for all road users.

The UK doesn't clarify what 'excessive speed' is or consider it a factor in enough road accidents. The figures for Germany and France are more realistic about speed being a major factor in over 50% of accidents and it's pretty obvious that as a car driver when you misjudge the speed of a bike and find yourself about the share a narrowing road with a cyclist you can react better at 20 mph than 35+mph.

Apart from the dreadful spelling the driver seems articulate enough in print. Smart enough to grow up, calm down, and share the road in future I hope. Does he need to be prosecuted? Nope. I suggest he joins a road club and exercises more than just his mouth though. He'd soon be turning his wit and wisdom on car drivers himself...

Ahhh, now I see! He managed to 'provoke him' by riding a bike on the road.....THE OUTRAGE

Aside from the evidence that he's wrong about what was said, he's wrong when he says: "Also, when I turn left, I have no need to indicate as it's a left only lane."

a) it's not a left only lane (see the road markings in the video)
b) the Highway Code doesn't say anywhere that you don't have to signal in a left only lane. In fact, quite the opposite - it says you should always signal.
c) there was a cyclist on his inside, it might be a Good Idea to let him know what you're up to

Well at least he didn't say, "It wasn't me, a big boy did it and ran away."

But the explanation seems about as plausible. It's interesting to see how many other drivers managed the overtake without having to feel the need to comment.

I have to say though, from this video clip at least the cycling silk doesn't claim his lane as much as I reckon the IAM would suggest.