Unwise to try to damage wingmirrors of cars

On 16/07/2014 12:21, Nick wrote:

On 16/07/2014 12:00, Tarcap wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message ...
On 16/07/2014 09:34, Tarcap wrote:

There's no way an overtaking car should have been close enough that the
cyclist could reach the mirror.

Then the same should apply to cyclists, especially undertaking ones in
slow moving traffic

Why? Let's see if you can string a remotely logical argument together.

Well, let's try the argument that we all operate to the same set of
rules, perhaps.

Same set of rules? So because an LGV licence is required to drive a
lorry all car drivers and presumably cyclists should have them as well?
I'll take that as a no.

Cyclists (well, some of 'em) demand a car's width clearance when being
overtaken by a motor vehicle. The demand has been echoes here many times.

Please explain why the drivers of motor vehicles should not expect
and/or demand a car's width clearance when being overtaken (on either
side) by a cyclist.

On 16/07/2014 11:13, Ariel wrote:

From JNugent:
On 15/07/2014 20:44, Ariel wrote:
From JNugent:
On 15/07/2014 19:23, Rob Morley wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:10:59 +0100
Mrcheerful wrote:

The car did not collide with the cyclist, the cyclist bashed the
mirror with his fist as the car overtook.

There's no way an overtaking car should have been close enough that the
cyclist could reach the mirror.

There's no way there's any justification for causing criminal damage to
the property of a fellow citizen.

According to the article linked to this thread, the driver involved in the
incident faces a possible jail sentence after being convicted of dangerous
driving and assault by beating a cyclist.

So what?

You do not think that makes him the guilty party in this incident?

Which "incident", and how do you know that there were not more than one
of them strung together?

After all, the story alleges that the cyclist admitted to having damaged
a wing mirror with his fist. That'd be an odd way to describe an
incident in which the wing mirror hit his hand as part of an unintended
collision, wouldn't it?

Admit it: you don't know what happened (at least, not from the contents
of that confused article) any more than anyone else does (unless they
were there).

There's stuill no way there's any justification for causing
criminal damage to the property of a fellow citizen.

We both know the obvious. The point is that it has not been established that
the cyclist caused criminal damage to the property of a fellow citizen. Why
are you behaving as though you somehow know he has committed that offence?

I am taking the only possible account of part of the report (see above).

If the report is correct (and I accept that it might not be), there were
at least two separate things which happened serially.

Come on... that's not difficult to conclude - is it?

I'm sorry you didn't know that.

Trolling?

That there is never justification for the commission of a crime is not
controversial.
Except among criminals (but that goes without saying).

More trolling?

Why do you so resolutely fail to condemn the cyclist's actions, whether
"instinctive" or not?

There is no mention of the cyclist doing anything against the law whatsoever,
however much you 'know' differently.

Which part of "the cyclist bashed the mirror with his fist as the car
overtook" was too difficult for you to understand?

Where are you getting that quote from?

From a previous poster who is paraphrasing the article (his re-wording
was not a great departure from what the cyclist is reported as saying).

I accept that the article is not a paragon of clarity and completeness.
We are therefore (all of us who are commenting on it) reduced to having
to deal with what we have, as opposed to dealing with what we'd like.

Here is the link that was given us at the start of this thread:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...s-9604177.html

There is reference there to "a cyclist who clipped the wing mirror" of a BMW.
Further on the article states, "As Watkiss [the driver] accelerated to
overtake, Mr Falle said he 'instinctively' raised his hand and struck the wing
mirror, then lost control and fell off his bike."

I know what you're doing.

So do you.

You're trying to make the damage to the mirror sound involuntary and
somehow part of a collision (whereas there is no report of a collision).

Nothing that I can see in that article suggests that the cyclist was charged
with doing anything against the law. Yet you, once again, it seems, 'know'
differently.

Read the article and comprehend what is being said. I don't know any
more about the incident(s) than what is reported and do not seek to
infer any other evidence.

The cyclist being reported as saying that "As ... the driver ...
accelerated to overtake, [he - the cyclist] 'instinctively' raised his
hand and struck the wing mirror" does not suggest anything other than a
deliberate and unnecessary act.

I accept that the report may be wrong.

But if it's right, criminal damage is a reasonable inference.

You don't like that, it's obvious. But that does not make the inference
any less obvious or reasonable.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:02:40 +0100, JNugent wrote:

About this "fist"...



The car did not collide with the cyclist, the cyclist bashed the
mirror with his fist as the car overtook.




After all, the story alleges that the cyclist admitted to having damaged
a wing mirror with his fist. That'd be an odd way to describe an
incident in which the wing mirror hit his hand as part of an unintended
collision, wouldn't it?




Which part of "the cyclist bashed the mirror with his fist as the car
overtook" was too difficult for you to understand?



....nowhere in the article does it say "fist" - you have made this up from whole cloth.

On 16/07/2014 16:25, Phil W Lee wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 15:02:40 +0100, JNugent wrote:

About this "fist"...

The car did not collide with the cyclist, the cyclist bashed the
mirror with his fist as the car overtook.

After all, the story alleges that the cyclist admitted to having damaged
a wing mirror with his fist. That'd be an odd way to describe an
incident in which the wing mirror hit his hand as part of an unintended
collision, wouldn't it?

Which part of "the cyclist bashed the mirror with his fist as the car
overtook" was too difficult for you to understand?

...nowhere in the article does it say "fist" - you have made this up from whole cloth.

You are at least as consistent as ever, in that you are wrong yet again.

As you would already know if you could only understand what you read, I
quoted that clause from another poster. He was paraphrasing part of the
news report, but not in a way which distorted its meaning.

In particular, there is no claim made in the report of a collision
except for the "collision" between the hand of the cyclist and the wing
mirror. And even the cyclist admits that this was his own "instinctive"
doing.

As ever, happy to help, though you never seem to learn, no matter how
much help you get.

On 16/07/2014 17:02, Ariel wrote:

From JNugent:
On 16/07/2014 11:13, Ariel wrote:
From JNugent:
On 15/07/2014 20:44, Ariel wrote:
From JNugent:
[snip]
According to the article linked to this thread, the driver involved in the
incident faces a possible jail sentence after being convicted of dangerous
driving and assault by beating a cyclist.

So what?

You do not think that makes him the guilty party in this incident?

Which "incident"...

The incident that has resulted in Mr. Watkiss facing a possible jail sentence
after being convicted of dangerous driving and assault by beating.

Your snipping, attempting to misrepresent what has been said, is childish.

There was clearly more than one incident. The first (if it happened as
reported) did not need to result in the second.

The report is so badly written that it is not possible to know what
happened. At least, not from reading the report. But you apparently know
everything about it without needing evidence.

... and how do you know that there were not more than one
of them strung together?

Like you, I only know what I read in that article.

Yet you manage to refine more out of it than its contents warrant.

After all, the story alleges that the cyclist admitted to having damaged
a wing mirror with his fist.

The cyclist admits to having raised his hand instinctively. Why should this
not be a defensive action rather than the aggressive 'fist' you imply?
('Fist', as someone else has already pointd out, is a word you have chosen to
use and it does not appear anywhere in the report.)

Which particular component of "the story alleges that the cyclist
admitted to having damaged a wing mirror with his fist" are you unable
to accept?

It's straightforward enough.

Or do you simply refuse to accept it on the basis that the cyclist,
being a cyclist, cannot have done anything wrong?

That'd be an odd way to describe an incident in which the wing mirror hit his
hand as part of an unintended collision, wouldn't it?

Would it?

Of course it would.

Admit it: you don't know what happened (at least, not from the contents
of that confused article) any more than anyone else does (unless they
were there).

Of course, I admit it - the contents of the article is all either of us have.

So why do you claim to know more than is reported?

[snip]
If the report is correct (and I accept that it might not be), there were
at least two separate things which happened serially.
Come on... that's not difficult to conclude - is it?
[snip]
Here is the link that was given us at the start of this thread:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...s-9604177.html

There is reference there to "a cyclist who clipped the wing mirror" of a BMW.
Further on the article states, "As Watkiss [the driver] accelerated to
overtake, Mr Falle said he 'instinctively' raised his hand and struck the wing
mirror, then lost control and fell off his bike."

I know what you're doing.
So do you.
You're trying to make the damage to the mirror sound involuntary and
somehow part of a collision (whereas there is no report of a collision).

I think it reasonable to believe that a cyclist could raise their hand
'instinctively' should they find themselves, suddenly and unexpectedly, in
close proximity to a fast approaching car wing mirror coming alongside, and
that this could be done as an involuntary defensive gesture. (As the cyclist
faced no reported charges in this case, why should I not conclude that is what
has happened here?)

There is no report of a traffic collision.

Is there?

Nothing that I can see in that article suggests that the cyclist was charged
with doing anything against the law. Yet you, once again, it seems, 'know'
differently.

Read the article and comprehend what is being said. I don't know any
more about the incident(s) than what is reported and do not seek to
infer any other evidence.

So you say.

I do say so.

The cyclist being reported as saying that "As ... the driver ...
accelerated to overtake, [he - the cyclist] 'instinctively' raised his
hand and struck the wing mirror" does not suggest anything other than a
deliberate and unnecessary act.

I don't agree with that. If it were so, surely, the cyclist would be charged
with criminal damage

That depends on when and where he made the admission. It also depends on
whether there was a guilty plea made by the driver and whether there was
any effective trial.

I accept that the report may be wrong.
But if it's right, criminal damage is a reasonable inference.

So you say.

I do say so.

You don't like that, it's obvious.

That is probably because it is far from obvious to me.

Ah... so it's "the cyclist, being a cyclist, cannot have done anything
wrong" as far as you are concerned.

But that does not make the inference any less obvious or reasonable.

The fact remains that the driver faces a jail sentence after being convicted
of dangerous driving and assault by beating.

That is not a recommendation to behave like that cyclist did - is it?

Whatever inference you have chosen to make over this incident (or incidents),
in that report, no mention is made of the cyclist being found guilty of (let
alone being charged with) anything against the law.

Yes, you've said that several times, as though it had some property of
incantation.

One wonders whether you similarly absolve every other road-user for
everything and anything they do as long as it does not result in a
conviction.

I suspect that that would somehow be Completely Different [TM] all of a
sudden.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 17:27:14 +0100, JNugent wrote:


Like you, I only know what I read in that article.

Yet you manage to refine more out of it than its contents warrant.

After all, the story alleges that the cyclist admitted to having damaged
a wing mirror with his fist.


No it does not.

The cyclist admits to having raised his hand instinctively. Why should this
not be a defensive action rather than the aggressive 'fist' you imply?
('Fist', as someone else has already pointd out, is a word you have chosen to
use and it does not appear anywhere in the report.)

Which particular component of "the story alleges that the cyclist
admitted to having damaged a wing mirror with his fist" are you unable
to accept?

The entire fact - nowhere is the word "fist" used.

Methinks JNugent is but a pale imitation of Maradonna.

On 16/07/2014 17:43, Nick wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 17:27:14 +0100, JNugent wrote:

Like you, I only know what I read in that article.

Yet you manage to refine more out of it than its contents warrant.

After all, the story alleges that the cyclist admitted to having damaged
a wing mirror with his fist.

No it does not.

Yes, it does.

The cyclist admits to having raised his hand instinctively. Why should this
not be a defensive action rather than the aggressive 'fist' you imply?
('Fist', as someone else has already pointd out, is a word you have chosen to
use and it does not appear anywhere in the report.)

Which particular component of "the story alleges that the cyclist
admitted to having damaged a wing mirror with his fist" are you unable
to accept?

The entire fact - nowhere is the word "fist" used.

Methinks JNugent is but a pale imitation of Maradonna.

Are you unable to read and properly comprehend English?

That's rhetorical, BTW.

"Nick" wrote in message ...

On 16/07/2014 12:00, Tarcap wrote:


"Nick" wrote in message ...

On 16/07/2014 09:34, Tarcap wrote:

There's no way an overtaking car should have been close enough that the
cyclist could reach the mirror.

Then the same should apply to cyclists, especially undertaking ones in
slow moving traffic

Why? Let's see if you can string a remotely logical argument together.

Well, let's try the argument that we all operate to the same set of
rules, perhaps.


Same set of rules? So because an LGV licence is required to drive a
lorry all car drivers and presumably cyclists should have them as well?

What peculiar logic you are using. I'll try to explain it to you.

If a cyclist wishes to drive an HGV he has to pass a particular test, whilst
demonstrating a level of knowledge which includes the highway code.
If a car driver wishes to drive an HGV he has to pass that same test.

Now if car drivers and HGV drivers were to work to different road rules,
let's say HGV's were to drive on the right side of the road, but car drivers
were to drive on the left side of the road, perhaps, you can now surely see
what problems that would cause

I hope I've made it simple enough for you to understand..

On 16/07/2014 19:12, Ariel wrote:
From JNugent:

On 16/07/2014 17:02, Ariel wrote:
From JNugent:
[snip]

Your snipping, attempting to misrepresent what has been said, is childish.

If I don't 'snip', eventually someone will complain, yet if I do 'snip',
again, someone will eventually complain - so I don't expect to win this one. I
am sorry that you feel I am attempting to misrepresent what has been said, I
would not knowingly do so. I accept, however, that I occasionally may be
guilty of over-snipping.

There was clearly more than one incident. The first (if it happened as
reported) did not need to result in the second.

The report is so badly written that it is not possible to know what
happened. At least, not from reading the report. But you apparently know
everything about it without needing evidence.

I thought that was you, you who apparently know more than is being reported.

... and how do you know that there were not more than one
of them strung together?

Like you, I only know what I read in that article.

Yet you manage to refine more out of it than its contents warrant.

Again, I thought it was you doing that.

After all, the story alleges that the cyclist admitted to having damaged
a wing mirror with his fist.

The cyclist admits to having raised his hand instinctively. Why should this
not be a defensive action rather than the aggressive 'fist' you imply?
('Fist', as someone else has already pointd out, is a word you have chosen to
use and it does not appear anywhere in the report.)

Which particular component of "the story alleges that the cyclist
admitted to having damaged a wing mirror with his fist" are you unable
to accept?

Probably the fact that, in the report, the cyclist did not admit to doing
anything with his 'fist'.

It's straightforward enough.

Or do you simply refuse to accept it on the basis that the cyclist,
being a cyclist, cannot have done anything wrong?

Where in that report was he legally accused of doing anything wrong?

That'd be an odd way to describe an incident in which the wing mirror hit his
hand as part of an unintended collision, wouldn't it?

Would it?

Of course it would.

I don't think so. Quoting from the report: "[The cyclist] said he
'instinctively' raised his hand and struck the wing mirror, then lost control
and fell off his bike." Why can that not be an unintended collision of hand
and wing mirror? (Didn't the court accept that?)

Admit it: you don't know what happened (at least, not from the contents
of that confused article) any more than anyone else does (unless they
were there).

Of course, I admit it - the contents of the article is all either of us have.

So why do you claim to know more than is reported?

Where do I do that?

[snip]
If the report is correct (and I accept that it might not be), there were
at least two separate things which happened serially.
Come on... that's not difficult to conclude - is it?
[snip]
Here is the link that was given us at the start of this thread:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...s-9604177.html

There is reference there to "a cyclist who clipped the wing mirror" of a BMW.
Further on the article states, "As Watkiss [the driver] accelerated to
overtake, Mr Falle said he 'instinctively' raised his hand and struck the wing
mirror, then lost control and fell off his bike."

I know what you're doing.
So do you.
You're trying to make the damage to the mirror sound involuntary and
somehow part of a collision (whereas there is no report of a collision).

I think it reasonable to believe that a cyclist could raise their hand
'instinctively' should they find themselves, suddenly and unexpectedly, in
close proximity to a fast approaching car wing mirror coming alongside, and
that this could be done as an involuntary defensive gesture. (As the cyclist
faced no reported charges in this case, why should I not conclude that is what
has happened here?)

There is no report of a traffic collision.

Is there?

No, I didn't say there was.

Nothing that I can see in that article suggests that the cyclist was charged
with doing anything against the law. Yet you, once again, it seems, 'know'
differently.

Read the article and comprehend what is being said. I don't know any
more about the incident(s) than what is reported and do not seek to
infer any other evidence.

So you say.

I do say so.

The cyclist being reported as saying that "As ... the driver ...
accelerated to overtake, [he - the cyclist] 'instinctively' raised his
hand and struck the wing mirror" does not suggest anything other than a
deliberate and unnecessary act.

I don't agree with that. If it were so, surely, the cyclist would be charged
with criminal damage

That depends on when and where he made the admission. It also depends on
whether there was a guilty plea made by the driver and whether there was
any effective trial.

I accept that the report may be wrong.
But if it's right, criminal damage is a reasonable inference.

So you say.

I do say so.

You don't like that, it's obvious.

That is probably because it is far from obvious to me.

Ah... so it's "the cyclist, being a cyclist, cannot have done anything
wrong" as far as you are concerned.

No. What is far from obvious to me is why you believe the cyclist has to be
obviously or reasonably guilty of criminal damage.

But that does not make the inference any less obvious or reasonable.

The fact remains that the driver faces a jail sentence after being convicted
of dangerous driving and assault by beating.

That is not a recommendation to behave like that cyclist did - is it?

I imagine that most cyclist would go to extreme measures to avoid being put at
risk from dangerous drivers and, additionally, then being beaten up by them.

Whatever inference you have chosen to make over this incident (or incidents),
in that report, no mention is made of the cyclist being found guilty of (let
alone being charged with) anything against the law.

Yes, you've said that several times, as though it had some property of
incantation.

I am just trying to stress that you seem to believe that the cyclist in this
case must be guilty of breaking the law but the report doesn't seem to bear
that out.

One wonders whether you similarly absolve every other road-user for
everything and anything they do as long as it does not result in a
conviction.

In a report of a court case, like the one we are talking about, charges and
convictions give us an indication who is accused and guilty of what.

I suspect that that would somehow be Completely Different [TM] all of a
sudden.

I dislike injustice of any kind.





I cannot imagine why a rider that felt he was in danger would remove a
hand from the controls unless he was jumping off, there is nothing
instinctive about putting up a hand, yet I have often seen claims and
reports of cyclists deliberately damaging car miiror of vehicles that
the cyclist feels has offended or insulted them in some way, such as
hooting at them. I hope the cyclist is not so stupid as to do whatever
he did again, next time the consequence might be fatal.

On 16/07/2014 19:12, Ariel wrote:

From JNugent:
On 16/07/2014 17:02, Ariel wrote:
From JNugent:
[snip]

Your snipping, attempting to misrepresent what has been said, is childish.

If I don't 'snip', eventually someone will complain, yet if I do 'snip',
again, someone will eventually complain - so I don't expect to win this one. I
am sorry that you feel I am attempting to misrepresent what has been said, I
would not knowingly do so. I accept, however, that I occasionally may be
guilty of over-snipping.

There was clearly more than one incident. The first (if it happened as
reported) did not need to result in the second.
The report is so badly written that it is not possible to know what
happened. At least, not from reading the report. But you apparently know
everything about it without needing evidence.

I thought that was you, you who apparently know more than is being reported.

I take account only of what is written. But I do not ignore important
parts of it.

There is no need to analyse the actions of the driver. He has been
convicted of two offences and cleared of a third charge. At a guess (and
this is just a guess, based on what is reported and on knowledge of the
way the law operates), he admitted the dangerous driving and ABH,
trading those against the affray charge of which he was not convicted.
DD is a notoriously difficult charge to prove in the absence of a guilty
plea. I'd be surprised if it turned out that he was convicted of it from
a not guilty plea, especially given that fatal accidents often result
only in a careless driving charge and conviction (and not always the
latter).

... and how do you know that there were not more than one
of them strung together?

Like you, I only know what I read in that article.

Yet you manage to refine more out of it than its contents warrant.

Again, I thought it was you doing that.

Not at all. I take note only of what is reported, weighed against what
we all know of life in general and where appropriate, the law in particular.

After all, the story alleges that the cyclist admitted to having damaged
a wing mirror with his fist.

The cyclist admits to having raised his hand instinctively. Why should this
not be a defensive action rather than the aggressive 'fist' you imply?
('Fist', as someone else has already pointd out, is a word you have chosen to
use and it does not appear anywhere in the report.)

Which particular component of "the story alleges that the cyclist
admitted to having damaged a wing mirror with his fist" are you unable
to accept?

Probably the fact that, in the report, the cyclist did not admit to doing
anything with his 'fist'.

It's straightforward enough.
Or do you simply refuse to accept it on the basis that the cyclist,
being a cyclist, cannot have done anything wrong?

Where in that report was he legally accused of doing anything wrong?

He accuses himself. That it is or is not mentioned in the report that
anyone else (other than the driver) accused him is neither here nor
there. The report is inadequate because incomplete. We know that.

That'd be an odd way to describe an incident in which the wing mirror hit his
hand as part of an unintended collision, wouldn't it?

Would it?

Of course it would.

I don't think so. Quoting from the report: "[The cyclist] said he
'instinctively' raised his hand and struck the wing mirror, then lost control
and fell off his bike." Why can that not be an unintended collision of hand
and wing mirror? (Didn't the court accept that?)

See the reply by another poster. I tend to agree with him on that issue.
It's hard to see a well-meaning cyclist do anything other than try as
best as he can to control his bike in the circumstances described.

Admit it: you don't know what happened (at least, not from the contents
of that confused article) any more than anyone else does (unless they
were there).

Of course, I admit it - the contents of the article is all either of us have.

So why do you claim to know more than is reported?

Where do I do that?

In any of the bits where you have asserted that the cyclist did nothing
wrong.

[snip]
If the report is correct (and I accept that it might not be), there were
at least two separate things which happened serially.
Come on... that's not difficult to conclude - is it?
[snip]

Here is the link that was given us at the start of this thread:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...s-9604177.html
There is reference there to "a cyclist who clipped the wing mirror" of a BMW.
Further on the article states, "As Watkiss [the driver] accelerated to
overtake, Mr Falle said he 'instinctively' raised his hand and struck the wing
mirror, then lost control and fell off his bike."

I know what you're doing.
So do you.
You're trying to make the damage to the mirror sound involuntary and
somehow part of a collision (whereas there is no report of a collision).

I think it reasonable to believe that a cyclist could raise their hand
'instinctively' should they find themselves, suddenly and unexpectedly, in
close proximity to a fast approaching car wing mirror coming alongside, and
that this could be done as an involuntary defensive gesture. (As the cyclist
faced no reported charges in this case, why should I not conclude that is what
has happened here?)

There is no report of a traffic collision.
Is there?

No, I didn't say there was.

So nothing to "defend" against. OTOH, there is, in the report, an
assertion that the cyclist was obstructing the road, though it is also
asserted that he had some right to do so.

Nothing that I can see in that article suggests that the cyclist was charged
with doing anything against the law. Yet you, once again, it seems, 'know'
differently.

Read the article and comprehend what is being said. I don't know any
more about the incident(s) than what is reported and do not seek to
infer any other evidence.

So you say.

I do say so.

The cyclist being reported as saying that "As ... the driver ...
accelerated to overtake, [he - the cyclist] 'instinctively' raised his
hand and struck the wing mirror" does not suggest anything other than a
deliberate and unnecessary act.

I don't agree with that. If it were so, surely, the cyclist would be charged
with criminal damage

That depends on when and where he made the admission. It also depends on
whether there was a guilty plea made by the driver and whether there was
any effective trial.

I accept that the report may be wrong.
But if it's right, criminal damage is a reasonable inference.

So you say.

I do say so.

You don't like that, it's obvious.

That is probably because it is far from obvious to me.

Ah... so it's "the cyclist, being a cyclist, cannot have done anything
wrong" as far as you are concerned.

No. What is far from obvious to me is why you believe the cyclist has to be
obviously or reasonably guilty of criminal damage.

Because he *said* so. Admittedly, he might not regard it as criminal
damage. You might not regard it as criminal damage. But damage caused
deliberately OR recklessly to the property of another person IS criminal
damage. It isn't even necessary to prove intent.

But that does not make the inference any less obvious or reasonable.

The fact remains that the driver faces a jail sentence after being convicted
of dangerous driving and assault by beating.

That is not a recommendation to behave like that cyclist did - is it?

I imagine that most cyclist would go to extreme measures to avoid being put at
risk from dangerous drivers and, additionally, then being beaten up by them.

You're probably right.

Most.

But not all.

Whatever inference you have chosen to make over this incident (or incidents),
in that report, no mention is made of the cyclist being found guilty of (let
alone being charged with) anything against the law.

Yes, you've said that several times, as though it had some property of
incantation.

I am just trying to stress that you seem to believe that the cyclist in this
case must be guilty of breaking the law but the report doesn't seem to bear
that out.

One wonders whether you similarly absolve every other road-user for
everything and anything they do as long as it does not result in a
conviction.

In a report of a court case, like the one we are talking about, charges and
convictions give us an indication who is accused and guilty of what.

We know about the driver.

That doesn't mean that everyone else was blameless or totally innocent.

I suspect that that would somehow be Completely Different [TM] all of a
sudden.

I dislike injustice of any kind.

Including criminal damage?