Whilst I consider what the driver did to be wrong, can I first address the cyclist's actions?
Basically, what the hell were you doing, cycling like that? I think I can sum it up on one phrase: 'red mist'. You were too close to the driver, and it wasn't safe to over-take there since you were all traveling at speed towards a junction with lights. Had you even got past, you would have undoubtedly cut them up - you wouldn't like that done to you, right? Not only that, you'd have also been straight into the path of a vehicle exiting right at the lights (which would have been green for them), namely a bus. I cycle and I would never, ever intentionally take those kinds of risks unless I had no other choice but it appeared to me you had a choice - and a responsibility - to simply stay back. You could have so easily been killed there.
OK, the driver. Apparently the police can't identify them due to false details on the car's documentation and insurance. If the date of this footage is legit then it would also mean they were driving untaxed, due to it expiring 05 Sep 2016 (it has not been renewed).
The driver appears to intentionally collide with stationary carriage in front (cyclist), and fails to stop at the scene of a collision. The only mitigating factors I can think of here in the driver's favor are thus. You see that traffic coming in the other direction? You see the red lights? It may be the driver was trying to stop you running into it or stop you from violently swerving in front of him and thus under his bonnet in the case he can't stop in time.
Yes, in my opinion what the driver did was wrong. But again I have to say I can find no logical reason for you to be cycling like that. Your cycling didn't cause him to run into you, but neither did your cycling help the situation. You've got to think of your own safety and that of others, and against a few tons of steel..you won't stand a chance. And cycling (or driving) like that often tends to attract drivers like this..
As far as I am aware this driver is still at large.
Whilst I consider what the driver did to be wrong, can I first address the cyclist's actions?
Basically, what the hell were you doing, cycling like that? I think I can sum it up on one phrase: 'red mist'. You were too close to the driver, and it wasn't safe to over-take there since you were all traveling at speed towards a junction with lights. Had you even got past, you would have undoubtedly cut them up - you wouldn't like that done to you, right? Not only that, you'd have also been straight into the path of a vehicle exiting right at the lights (which would have been green for them), namely a bus. I cycle and I would never, ever intentionally take those kinds of risks unless I had no other choice but it appeared to me you had a choice - and a responsibility - to simply stay back. You could have so easily been killed there.
OK, the driver. Apparently the police can't identify them due to false details on the car's documentation and insurance. If the date of this footage is legit then it would also mean they were driving untaxed, due to it expiring 05 Sep 2016 (it has not been renewed).
The driver appears to intentionally collide with stationary carriage in front (cyclist), and fails to stop at the scene of a collision. The only mitigating factors I can think of here in the driver's favor are thus. You see that traffic coming in the other direction? You see the red lights? It may be the driver was trying to stop you running into it or stop you from violently swerving in front of him and thus under his bonnet in the case he can't stop in time.
Yes, in my opinion what the driver did was wrong. But again I have to say I can find no logical reason for you to be cycling like that. Your cycling didn't cause him to run into you, but neither did your cycling help the situation. You've got to think of your own safety and that of others, and against a few tons of steel..you won't stand a chance. And cycling (or driving) like that often tends to attract drivers like this..
As far as I am aware this driver is still at large.