Police appeal after female cyclist pushed to ground by ped

[dandarez]

saaby93 said:

I put this down to a typical dashcam incident. It doesn't seem to matter whether its a bike with one or a car with one, the sequence is the same. Provoke the type of person you wouldn't normally be bothered about, act surprised when the inevitable happens, post it up on the internet and claim that escalated quickly

As always what happens at the end isn't defensible but step back and ask who is really surprised?

Here's where it starts with the guy waiting to cross the road in a stream of slow moving traffic



Surely he could have chosen to cross there in front of the bike. As a pedestrian he does have priority but chose not to exercise it. Wouldnt most people on a bike, in a car or truck have nodded or waved him across out the way - it doesnt take a few seconds and barely any effect on the traffic there.

Instead he waits for the bike, and instead of thanks mate, gets warned for doing something he wasn't going to do and the escalation begins
What do people have for breakfast?

First time I've looked at that vid.
'Slow' moving traffic?

I expected it to be crawling, he ran like f to catch her at that corner. She's a prat for what she did, but anyone who reacts with anger like that, pushing a woman into the road of traffic deserves all he gets.

Sad part of this story is 'it's da modun wurld.'

[MrBarry123]

Calletrece said:

NEEP said:

So, you feel assault is justified by someone flipping the bird? Best of luck with that defence.

It depends if by justified you mean 'legally acceptable' or 'likely social outcome'.

As has been explained, if you go up to strangers, chastise them wrongly, and then abuse them, it's fairly likely you may get a gentle shove at best (as has happened here) and a proper wallop at worst.

It might not be right, but it is fairly likely to happen.

Agreed.

It's the same as people who berate another driver, only for said car driver to knock them the fk out.

The assault is still abhorrent (and the person doing the assaulting should be punished appropriately) however the person berating can hardly claim he/she didn't in the slightest expect that to be the end result.

[hornetrider]

NEEP said:

hornetrider said:

Indeed.

The nuance here is would he have lamped her if she hadn't flipped him the bird? What do you think?

So, you feel assault is justified by someone flipping the bird? Best of luck with that defence.

You've failed to understand what I have written. Just to clarify once more because you don't seem to understand. I am not in any way justifying him attacking her in any way.

I'll repeat the question for you, s-l-o-w-l-y:

Would he have lamped her if she hadn't flipped him the bird?

[Calletrece]

Precisely, my Welsh amigo

[NEEP]

'

hornetrider said:

NEEP said:

hornetrider said:

Indeed.

The nuance here is would he have lamped her if she hadn't flipped him the bird? What do you think?

So, you feel assault is justified by someone flipping the bird? Best of luck with that defence.

You've failed to understand what I have written. Just to clarify once more because you don't seem to understand. I am not in any way justifying him attacking her in any way.

I'll repeat the question for you, s-l-o-w-l-y:

Would he have lamped her if she hadn't flipped him the bird?

I think he is the sort of moron that would strike out if you looked at him funny.

[anonymous-user]

NEEP said:

hornetrider said:

Indeed.

The nuance here is would he have lamped her if she hadn't flipped him the bird? What do you think?

So, you feel assault is justified by someone flipping the bird? Best of luck with that defence.

He didn't say anything of the sort FFS!

[ewenm]

Calletrece said:

Great analogy about nightclubs further up.

oyster said:

I wonder why he lamped her. 99.9% of people wonder it too. As will the police. As will a judge. Only neanderthals think otherwise.

She was abusive to him, after previously being condescending to him.

HTH

I guess we all have to accept there are people with egos so very fragile that their only course of action when faced with such terrible verbal abuse is to react with violence.

[hornetrider]

NEEP said:

'

hornetrider said:

NEEP said:

hornetrider said:

Indeed.

The nuance here is would he have lamped her if she hadn't flipped him the bird? What do you think?

So, you feel assault is justified by someone flipping the bird? Best of luck with that defence.

You've failed to understand what I have written. Just to clarify once more because you don't seem to understand. I am not in any way justifying him attacking her in any way.

I'll repeat the question for you, s-l-o-w-l-y:

Would he have lamped her if she hadn't flipped him the bird?

I think he is the sort of moron that would strike out if you looked at him funny.

So you agree that if the cyclist did not provoke him, she wouldn't have been assaulted?

[ewenm]

hornetrider said:

NEEP said:

'

hornetrider said:

NEEP said:

hornetrider said:

Indeed.

The nuance here is would he have lamped her if she hadn't flipped him the bird? What do you think?

So, you feel assault is justified by someone flipping the bird? Best of luck with that defence.

You've failed to understand what I have written. Just to clarify once more because you don't seem to understand. I am not in any way justifying him attacking her in any way.

I'll repeat the question for you, s-l-o-w-l-y:

Would he have lamped her if she hadn't flipped him the bird?

I think he is the sort of moron that would strike out if you looked at him funny.

So you agree that if the cyclist did not provoke him, she wouldn't have been assaulted?

What about his provocation of her by his initial action? Or does that not count?

[Exige77]

hornetrider said:

You've failed to understand what I have written. Just to clarify once more because you don't seem to understand. I am not in any way justifying him attacking her in any way.

I'll repeat the question for you, s-l-o-w-l-y:

Would he have lamped her if she hadn't flipped him the bird?

^^^^Exactly this.

Cause and affect. It might not be everybody's liking, legal or moral, but action A prompted action B.

[walm]

hornetrider said:

So you agree that if the cyclist did not provoke him, she wouldn't have been assaulted?

If she had chosen to take the tube that day, she wouldn't have been assaulted.
What's your point?

[hornetrider]

>removes nest of irritating quotes<

ewenm said:

What about his provocation of her by his initial action? Or does that not count?

What are we talking about as 'the initial action' - him crossing the road? As far as I can tell, sequence of events is:

1. Him crossing the road aiming behind her it seems to me.
2. Her saying 'please don't try and knock me off' (don't know why she says this, for the benefit of her headcam YT fans?)
3. Him saying 'Shut up' plus something unintelligible may be 'you fking muppet'
4. Cyclist continues
5. Bloke sprints up and shouts at her for giving him the finger, then pushes her off.

Fair summary?

If that is a fair summary, I'd say the initial action provoking this event is her saying don't knock me off, which strikes me as an odd thing to say.

I guess my point is, there's a lot of DCWs/HCWs (work it out) going around abusing others whom they've perceived to have committed errors. Many have said it's only a matter of time before they shove the camera in the wrong person's face, because if you choose to engage mops in this way sooner or later it's going to bite you on the arse.

Another example is on another thread where that vlogger on the motorbike who's a bit shouty gets set about by the two pizza delivery moped riders. He bites off more than he can chew and similarly is taking a big risk for the sake of a few YT views.

IMO.

Edited by hornetrider on Wednesday 26th August 14:56

[clonmult]

Exige77 said:

hornetrider said:

You've failed to understand what I have written. Just to clarify once more because you don't seem to understand. I am not in any way justifying him attacking her in any way.

I'll repeat the question for you, s-l-o-w-l-y:

Would he have lamped her if she hadn't flipped him the bird?

^^^^Exactly this.

Cause and affect. It might not be everybody's liking, legal or moral, but action A prompted action B.

Apart from action A being prompted by a previous action, him crossing on a red pedestrian light. He was completely in the wrong.

[hornetrider]

walm said:

If she had chosen to take the tube that day, she wouldn't have been assaulted.
What's your point?

Well, I guess that depends if she decided to flip the bird to someone similarly unhinged on the tube, now doesn't it?

[NEEP]

hornetrider said:

NEEP said:

'

hornetrider said:

NEEP said:

hornetrider said:

Indeed.

The nuance here is would he have lamped her if she hadn't flipped him the bird? What do you think?

So, you feel assault is justified by someone flipping the bird? Best of luck with that defence.

You've failed to understand what I have written. Just to clarify once more because you don't seem to understand. I am not in any way justifying him attacking her in any way.

I'll repeat the question for you, s-l-o-w-l-y:

Would he have lamped her if she hadn't flipped him the bird?

I think he is the sort of moron that would strike out if you looked at him funny.

So you agree that if the cyclist did not provoke him, she wouldn't have been assaulted?

My turn as you seem to be as thick as the moron in the video. Flipping the bird is not a reason to assault someone..

[hornetrider]

NEEP said:

My turn as you seem to be as thick as the moron in the video. Flipping the bird is not a reason to assault someone..

Finally! So you agree that flipping the bird in this instance caused him to assault her. I'm glad we got there in the end. No bird, no assault.

[FredClogs]

NEEP said:

My turn as you seem to be as thick as the moron in the video. Flipping the bird is not a reason to assault someone..

Crossing the road is not a reason to flip someone the bird.

As a society there has to be some self regulation and feedback to peoples behviour, this example was undoubtedly an over reaction, but flipping the bird is an act of aggression and intolerance that should not be tolerated and that should be fed back - cyclist or no cyclist.

[anonymous-user]

NEEP said:

My turn as you seem to be as thick as the moron in the video. Flipping the bird is not a reason to assault someone..

Wow. You think? Then again that isn't what he said is it?

[Mr Will]

hornetrider said:

NEEP said:

My turn as you seem to be as thick as the moron in the video. Flipping the bird is not a reason to assault someone..

Finally! So you agree that flipping the bird in this instance caused him to assault her. I'm glad we got there in the end. No bird, no assault.

Maybe if he hadn't hurled abuse at her then she wouldn't have flipped him the bird and hurt his feelings. Now we are back to it being his fault - happy?

[TheSnitch]

dandarez said:

First time I've looked at that vid.
'Slow' moving traffic?

I expected it to be crawling, he ran like f to catch her at that corner. She's a prat for what she did, but anyone who reacts with anger like that, pushing a woman into the road of traffic deserves all he gets.

Sad part of this story is 'it's da modun wurld.'

It's not only 'not slow moving traffic' he also appears to be crossing against the lights, so he doesn't have priority anyway. In addition he shouts abuse at her just as he first goes out of sight.

He's a complete twunt