Road rage escalation
Discussion
jamieduff1981 said:
Thinking on this, wouldn't you have to prove an intent to kill to make attempted murder stick? As opposed to teach a violent lesson...
I wonder if the worst he'll get is dangerous driving and a short ban?
Yes and no. 'Malice aforethought' is the key thing from the legislation. An attempt to kill or cause very serious harm. I think it's fair to say though that if you deliberately run someone over you intend to cause them very serious harm. I wonder if the worst he'll get is dangerous driving and a short ban?
DaveCWK said:
Maybe the van drier said he was going back to his van to get his shotgun to kill you two @@@@@@@. Who knows. There are many situations where it can be acceptable to run someone down.
All your story needs to make it less credible is a few alien space ships and a story line where the Americans steal the enigma machine from the Germans before blowing up an entire battleship with one bullet.The truth is, we have no idea what was said and putting words in either parties mouths is pure guesswork.
The facts are (as relayed by the person who was , there) - that there was a conversation, with no visible physical contact between the parties followed by the civic driver mowing down the van driver as he returned to his own vehicle.
jamieduff1981 said:
Another road rage story here.
I was on my way home and pulled up at a junction behind a rusty white van. The van door opened and out stepped the driver who walked over to speak to the driver of a Civic Type R through his window. I had my windows up but could hear general disagreement and hand waving.
The van driver walked back towards his van but as he crossed the front of the Honda the driver of the latter (a young male with male passenger) floored it and shovelled the van driver up and over the bonnet and windscreen before speeding off.
I pulled around the van and stopped in front. The guy had a lot of grazing on his forearms and was very sore and badly shaken.
I was on my way home and pulled up at a junction behind a rusty white van. The van door opened and out stepped the driver who walked over to speak to the driver of a Civic Type R through his window. I had my windows up but could hear general disagreement and hand waving.
The van driver walked back towards his van but as he crossed the front of the Honda the driver of the latter (a young male with male passenger) floored it and shovelled the van driver up and over the bonnet and windscreen before speeding off.
I pulled around the van and stopped in front. The guy had a lot of grazing on his forearms and was very sore and badly shaken.
jamieduff1981 said:
It's a terrible thing to say but I was a bit annoyed when the van driver got out because he blocked everyone (big queue behind me) through a green light while he argued and tbh we were a bit worried he might be a caravanning enthusiast so didn't want to involve ourselves. The arguement wasn't violent looking and there were no threatening gestures we could see. The Civic driver's decision to run him down was totally unwarranted and completely indefensible - so I decidee to involve myself afterall. Another couple of lads stopped too and also gave details.
Edited by Hol on Sunday 29th March 09:46
spitsfire said:
smokeey said:
Or bully Transit driver finally picked on the wrong little guy and got what he deserved.
Drive Blind said:
you dont know what started it and you dont know what the van driver said. He chose to escalate it.
the civic driver clearly decided he was leaving ASAP.
the civic driver clearly decided he was leaving ASAP.
Jasandjules said:
An act of necessity..
rambo19 said:
Must admit, I would not of got involved.
Rich_W said:
Difficult to say whose at fault though.
Jasandjules said:
Only one of them got out of the car to start a confrontation.
chrisb92 said:
As much as I don't condone running another man owner, you get out your van giving it large at your own risk!
I've read through this thread from end to end, and then read it again because I thought I was going mad.There are a significant number people on PH who genuinely believe it's acceptable to deliberately drive a car into a pedestrian in a circumstance other than where there is an immediate threat to life?
What the fk is wrong with you people?
I'm sure you'd all be on here double-quick complaining if the Civic driver had bumped your car in a car park and driven off.
Anybody who intentionally uses a vehicle as a weapon deserves to be hung up by the gonads.
OP, Good for you for getting the details of the other witnesses and calling the police.
Edited by spitsfire on Sunday 29th March 07:38
Getting out of the car is a conscious decision to escalate an issue. It will usually end badly for one or both parties - embarrassment at best, death at worst. Without knowing all the facts, all I'd say is that if someone is badly frightened they may well do things that seem unreasonable in the cool, calm surroundings of Sunday morning in your dressing gown on the internet.
6cylGolf said:
iva cosworth said:
Drive Blind said:
you dont know what started it and you dont know what the van driver said. He chose to escalate it.
the civic driver clearly decided he was leaving ASAP.
And that justifies hit and run ?the civic driver clearly decided he was leaving ASAP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpCprbW-W74
I saw a similar thing once when I was passing football traffic. I was on the other side of the road. A yob had jumped onto the bonnet of a stationary hatchback and was lying against the windscreen waving his arma at the crowd. The girl driving the car hit the accelerator and braked after about 100 feet which flung him to the ground. She was then surrounded by his mates all shouting at her. I felt really sorry for her as she was in tears.
I've no idea why she did it but suspect it was either rage or fear.
I've no idea why she did it but suspect it was either rage or fear.
sparkyhx said:
totally agree - there really are some mongs on this site
I don't get why you quoted some of us in there. If you get out your vehicle and approach someone else in theirs you run the risk of picking on the wrong guy and this is what happened to the transit driver. Again, not saying I agree with running someone over, but don't start a fight if you're not prepared to get hit.chrisb92 said:
I don't get why you quoted some of us in there. If you get out your vehicle and approach someone else in theirs you run the risk of picking on the wrong guy and this is what happened to the transit driver. Again, not saying I agree with running someone over, but don't start a fight if you're not prepared to get hit.
This kind of mentality is frightening.tomjol said:
chrisb92 said:
I don't get why you quoted some of us in there. If you get out your vehicle and approach someone else in theirs you run the risk of picking on the wrong guy and this is what happened to the transit driver. Again, not saying I agree with running someone over, but don't start a fight if you're not prepared to get hit.
This kind of mentality is frightening.Stop being such a big baby.
tomjol said:
chrisb92 said:
I don't get why you quoted some of us in there. If you get out your vehicle and approach someone else in theirs you run the risk of picking on the wrong guy and this is what happened to the transit driver. Again, not saying I agree with running someone over, but don't start a fight if you're not prepared to get hit.
This kind of mentality is frightening.Several confusions taking place (in the thread, or perceptions in general):
- 'event occurs' confused with 'individual deserved it'
- 'how people should behave' confused with 'how people do behave'
- 'law exists' confused with 'bad things don't happen'
I tried explaining the latter to a friend of mine: just because the Murder Act makes murder illegal, it doesn't stop anyone from being murdered; it only provides a mechanism for punishing a murderer. He couldn't quite get his head round it and kept saying something along the lines of, "but they're not allowed!"
It's a similar principle that comes up many times on here, often in cycling threads:
"I have the right/priority to drive/cycle/walk here, and because I'm right I'm going to drive/cycle/walk here and if they crash into me they're in the wrong."
The reality is more likely:
"If they crash into me I'm going to be seriously injured, in huge amounts of pain or possibly killed."
'In the right/priority' is not always aligned with 'best option for personal welfare'.
tomjol said:
chrisb92 said:
I don't get why you quoted some of us in there. If you get out your vehicle and approach someone else in theirs you run the risk of picking on the wrong guy and this is what happened to the transit driver. Again, not saying I agree with running someone over, but don't start a fight if you're not prepared to get hit.
This kind of mentality is frightening.How is that "frightening"?
chrisb92 said:
Again, not saying I agree with running someone over, but don't start a fight if you're not prepared to get hit.
I understand with what you're saying, and I agree with it for the most part.Any time you instigate something with a stranger, you have no idea who it is you're getting involved with, or how they're going to react. It's a balance of being able to stand up for yourself against picking a fight witha lunatic.
I don't regard it as blaming the victim (the van driver) for people to say this. The Civic driver is still entirely in the wrong here, but as your parents should have taught you about waiting for traffic to stop when crossing the road even at a crossing - it doesn't matter if you're legally/morally right if you're dead.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff