Road rage escalation

[spitsfire]

jamieduff1981 said:

I thought I'd chip in again to advise that the Police have not contacted me about this to date.

If the events happened as you described, you might want to call the News desk at the P&J... they'll run it if they can get corroboration. My experience with the cops is that they'll not follow it up to enthusiastically unless somebody was seriously injured or there is a bit of attention on them.

That's not to say the cops don't care, more that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. As I posted previously, anybody who deliberately runs over a pedestrian without a very good excuse deserves to be hung up by the gonads.

[Devil2575]

rambo19 said:

Must admit, I would not of got involved.

Why?

[Mike22233]

spitsfire said:

If the events happened as you described, you might want to call the News desk at the P&J... they'll run it if they can get corroboration. My experience with the cops is that they'll not follow it up to enthusiastically unless somebody was seriously injured or there is a bit of attention on them.

That's not to say the cops don't care, more that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. As I posted previously, anybody who deliberately runs over a pedestrian without a very good excuse deserves to be hung up by the gonads.

Yes, but in this instance, it's not like the driver was bored and just hit someone at random. Mr big balls in the transit came out to 'av a go'. I am sure he wasn't all like:

"Hello sir, would you please mind driving more carefully? Jolly well, Goodbye"

[spitsfire]

Mike22233 said:

Yes, but in this instance, it's not like the driver was bored and just hit someone at random. Mr big balls in the transit came out to 'av a go'. I am sure he wasn't all like:

"Hello sir, would you please mind driving more carefully? Jolly well, Goodbye"

Under Scots Law, that is entirely irrelevant: See my previous posts for further details. Basing my conclusions solely on the OP's description of events, the Civic driver appears to have committed a pretty serious offence.

[spitsfire]

Count me out of this thread - it's starting to depress me.

I hope that some of the posters on here are adopting their line purely to be contrarian, and not because they genuinely believe that running over a pedestrian can be defended in anything but the most extreme circumstances.

Either way, it's getting a bit depressing.

[RobM77]

spitsfire said:

Count me out of this thread - it's starting to depress me.

I hope that some of the posters on here are adopting their line purely to be contrarian, and not because they genuinely believe that running over a pedestrian can be defended in anything but the most extreme circumstances.

Either way, it's getting a bit depressing.

I don't think anyone's defended the Civic driver's actions have they? Explained, yes, but not defended.

The key message here is that road rage, or in fact any vigilante style confrontation with a complete stranger, can easily escalate beyond the significance of the original problem and see either party getting seriously injured. This is why the police exist as professionals to deal with dangerous driving and why they frown upon vigilantes. As we all know though, in reality the police are almost never on the roads (through no fault of their own, it's simply a lack of funding) and the roads are full of idiots who haven't read their Highway Code since they were 17, but personally I don't think that excuses anyone getting out of their car and having a go at someone, or of course someone running someone else over. If you don't wear a police uniform and have the authority of the police, then you should know your place and stop being sanctimoniously dictatorial.

[Strawman]

RobM77 said:

I don't think anyone's defended the Civic driver's actions have they? Explained, yes, but not defended.

Explaining by making up imaginary facts is worthless explanation.

RobM77 said:

The key message here is that road rage, or in fact any vigilante style confrontation with a complete stranger

Was the OP describing a vigilante type confrontation? Go and look up what vigilante means in a dictionary.

[Devil2575]

RobM77 said:

I don't think anyone's defended the Civic driver's actions have they? Explained, yes, but not defended.

The key message here is that road rage, or in fact any vigilante style confrontation with a complete stranger, can easily escalate beyond the significance of the original problem and see either party getting seriously injured. This is why the police exist as professionals to deal with dangerous driving and why they frown upon vigilantes. As we all know though, in reality the police are almost never on the roads (through no fault of their own, it's simply a lack of funding) and the roads are full of idiots who haven't read their Highway Code since they were 17, but personally I don't think that excuses anyone getting out of their car and having a go at someone, or of course someone running someone else over. If you don't wear a police uniform and have the authority of the police, then you should know your place and stop being sanctimoniously dictatorial.

But they haven't explained anything as they don't know. They have sought to justify in the absence of any facts. The way it was explained by the OP, and that is all we have to go on, is that the Civic driver had the opportunity to drive away without running over the van driver. So he wasn't cornered and had another option. The van driver may or may not have made any number of different threats and you could speculate about this all day long, but with a viable alternative there is no justification for running him over. In heated and threatening situations people do unexpected things but that doesn't make it ok.

[anonymous-user]

Strawman said:

RobM77 said:

I don't think anyone's defended the Civic driver's actions have they? Explained, yes, but not defended.

Explaining by making up imaginary facts is worthless explanation.

RobM77 said:

The key message here is that road rage, or in fact any vigilante style confrontation with a complete stranger

Was the OP describing a vigilante type confrontation? Go and look up what vigilante means in a dictionary.

Jesus christ. Only on PH.

OK you picky bonk-jockey, they're offering explanations rather than giving you gospel on what happened. And we all know what he means by vigilante, someone who decides to become judge and jury off their own back without official sanction or appointment. Better for you?

Strawman? Pedantic belm, more like.

[Strawman]

fk off Bob

[s55shh]

Similar thing happened to me last year albeit not a road rage confrontation. I was working on a roundabout that was half closed with traffic running under two way lights on opposite side. Side roads were fully closed for the night.
Car driver stopped, moved cones and drove into the side road that we were resurfacing. As I walked towards him with both hands indicating stop, he floored it and drove into me. I managed to jump so went over rather than under but got quite a few knocks as I rolled off the side of his windscreen and hit the floor.
Other workers got number plate and indeed the gatemen talked to the driver as he left the other end of the site so could ID the driver well.
Reg Keeper address was not where the reg keeper lived so police couldn't find him straight away (moved house not changed V5). When police did find him he did not fit the description of the driver but failed to provide driver details.
Upshot was 6 points and £185 find for RK.

[RobM77]

Strawman said:

RobM77 said:

I don't think anyone's defended the Civic driver's actions have they? Explained, yes, but not defended.

Explaining by making up imaginary facts is worthless explanation.

Yes, but that would still not be a defence, just a worthless explanation. I never defended the Civic driver, and nobody has since I joined the thread?

I'd also add that just in case you're referring to my posts earlier, I haven't made up any facts at all. My stance is that we don't know what happened, and I used a few likely scenarios as examples to show that any range of things may have happened prior to the OP turning up on the scene. It was a statement of "who knows what happened, it could have been A or B, we just don't know" - nothing's been made up at all.

Strawman said:

RobM77 said:

The key message here is that road rage, or in fact any vigilante style confrontation with a complete stranger

Was the OP describing a vigilante type confrontation? Go and look up what vigilante means in a dictionary.

No, he wasn't, and I never said he was. I said (as you quoted above) "or in fact any vigilante style confrontation", i.e. I was broadening my point to include other actions not in the OP's story. I was making an analogy between sanctimonious meddlers who get out of their cars to school other drivers and vigilantes - it's part of the same problem in my opinion.

There seems to be a serious lack of English comprehension on this thread now!!! Strawman and Hol: is English your first language?! You really do seem to be missing the point on multiple occasions.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 1st April 11:24

[Strawman]

RobM77 said:

No, he wasn't, and I never said he was. I said (as you quoted above) "or in fact any vigilante style confrontation", i.e. I was broadening my point to include other actions not in the OP's story.

There seems to be a serious lack of English comprehension on this thread now!!!

OK I'll remember to not read anything you post in future. Why broaden the discussion? When you say

RobM77 said:

My stance is that we don't know what happened,

I hope you'll concede that the OP has more of an idea than you?

[anonymous-user]

Strawman said:

fk off Bob

I concede to your superior (mass) debating skills.

[Strawman]

[RobM77]

Strawman said:

RobM77 said:

No, he wasn't, and I never said he was. I said (as you quoted above) "or in fact any vigilante style confrontation", i.e. I was broadening my point to include other actions not in the OP's story.

There seems to be a serious lack of English comprehension on this thread now!!!

OK I'll remember to not read anything you post in future. Why broaden the discussion? When you say

RobM77 said:

My stance is that we don't know what happened,

I hope you'll concede that the OP has more of an idea than you?

Sorry, but you're still really not understanding what I (and others) are saying. Imagine you've got a rusty bolt on yout car, what I said would be like me saying "the problem with steel bolts, or in fact anything made of steel, is rust". That doesn't mean I'm making up facts or anything like that, it's just a manner of speech. In a similar way I was saying that (to paraphrase what I said) "the problem with people who get out of their cars to have words with other drivers, or in fact any such sancimonious action (as with vigilantes for example) is.."

In answer to your question, yes, of course the OP has the most idea of what happened - he was there Nobody's said otherwise have they?

[J4CKO]

Strawman said:

fk off Bob

I just dont understand how all these rage incidents occur

[RobM77]

J4CKO said:

Strawman said:

fk off Bob

I just dont understand how all these rage incidents occur

[Strawman]

RobM77 said:

Sorry, but you're still really not understanding what I (and others) are saying. Imagine you've got a rusty bolt on yout car, what I said would be like me saying "the problem with steel bolts, or in fact anything made of steel, is rust". That doesn't mean I'm making up facts or anything like that, it's just a manner of speech. In a similar way I was saying that (to paraphrase what I said) "the problem with people who get out of their cars to have words with other drivers, or in fact any such sancimonious action (as with vigilantes for example) is.."

In answer to your question, yes, of course the OP has the most idea of what happened - he was there Nobody's said otherwise have they?

You might have noticed two people have left this thread depressed by the twisted logic applied here by you and a few othere. Those on your side of the 'debate' who want to emphasise the wrongness of the van driver's actions, whereas I see what he did was perfectly legal and indeed normal in a civilised society. Yet that is somehow now vigilante action. The normal definition of vigilante involves violence.
From dictionary.com "done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures:"

[Jasandjules]

Strawman said:

fk off Bob

FFS Bob don't put your laptop near him, he might run it over