Road rage escalation

[Fastra]

spitsfire said:

Fastra said:

Jasandjules said:

imagineifyeswill said:

For gods sake, the guy had said his piece and was walking back to his van when he was deliberately run over, going by the responses on here I wouldnt like to meet some of you on a dark night.

And you know for absolute certainty that he hadn't said "I'm gonna get my hammer and bash your head in" or anything? Nothing threatening at all was said to the Civic driver?

Did he stop his car (and upset the OP by doing so) to pop over and applaud the Civic driver for his driving skills and chat about the lovely weather?

No, we do not know what was said and we don't know how panicked the Civic driver (or his passenger) was.

Pre-emptive strikes

There is no rule in law to say that a person must wait to be struck first before they may defend themselves, (see R v Deana, 2 Cr App R 75).
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/#P...

So it very much depends on what the van driver said as he walked away.
Had it been " Just wait there whilst I put an end to it" then I think I might have been inclined to make sure he didn't.

Except for the fact that this took place in Scotland, where there is a different legal system, the CPS don't exist, and R v Deana wouldn't apply. See my post above:

spitsfire said:

As a question of law (this being Scotland), the driver might find himself in serious soapy bubble. Depending on witness statements/video evidence/what he says if interviewed by the fuzz, he could be looking at an attempted murder charge, and deservedly so.

He only has a defence in law if he can show he had no other option but to drive his vehicle into an unarmed pedestrian. Looking at the road, that doesn't seem be the case - he could have waited until the van driver had passed in front, he could have reversed and gone to the side of him, etc etc.

I can understand that, but to me, it all depends on what was said and how it affected the civic driver mindeset.
Obviously there's absolutely no way anything can be proven, but could he have though the only way to avoid the situation in his favour was to prevent the van driver from be able to carry on with his threat, thus 'imobolise' him?

[Mopar440]

Fastra said:

thus 'imobolise' him?

Does that mean kick him in the bol ocks?

[sparkyhx]

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.

agreed

Exchange of words is not a fight. Fisticuffs I would possibly agree, but we was driven at/over!

[Fastra]

Mopar440 said:

Does that mean kick him in the bol ocks?

er, yes, quite..!

[spitsfire]

Fastra said:

I can understand that, but to me, it all depends on what was said and how it affected the civic driver mindeset.
Obviously there's absolutely no way anything can be proven, but could he have though the only way to avoid the situation in his favour was to prevent the van driver from be able to carry on with his threat, thus 'imobolise' him?

Although it's anathema in PH land, Scots Law generally prefers you to run away from a threatening situation than embrace it and lay waste to the aggressor if practicable. Hence why Mr Civic is going to have a very unpleasant interview if there is corroborated evidence (Scots Law still requires corroboration) that he drove into the van driver when he could have driven round him. I was quite specific in the above post for exactly this reason

Based on the info posted by the OP, I do hope the Civic driver gets his collar felt....

[Busa mav]

Only this week , the front page of the local paper was about a local stonemason who ran somebody over , then got out of his van and started laying into his unconscious victim.

All about a parking space outside the co-op

Passers by tried pulling him off and he became aggressive with them too, until the local butcher " restrained " him until police arrived.

12 months prison .

[br d]

Fastra said:

br d said:

This thread is parallel universe time. Whatever was said or initiated the Civic driver could have faced the bloke physically or driven away safely after the bloke left, instead he chose to deliberately run him over risking killing him.

I am stunned by the responses here.

I'm stunned that you're stunned.
You do realise that not everyone is the typical PH user don't you?
Said Civic driver might have been 8 stone ringing wet and not at all the confrontational type (I know, I know, but these weak types do exist...!!!), so after the tone of the conversation sank in, thought, not being in a rational frame of mind due to being scared witless, " fk it, I;m not hanging round to find out"

Just perhaps eh?

Well, aside from the fact that the OP has stated that the Civic driver clearly made some sort of verbal threat which would negate your point somewhat, if you are the sort of person that is so terrified of a situation like this that driving into someone in blind panic, rather than waiting 1 second for them to depart, is the only conclusion they can reach I would suggest that they shouldn't be behind a wheel in the first place.

Regardless, I'm leaving the thread, something is either seriously wrong with me, or with everybody else, and I don't like those odds

Edited by br d on Sunday 29th March 14:29

[GC8]

Stong in this thread, the stupidity is.

[Strawman]

br d said:

Regardless, I'm leaving the thread, something is either seriously wrong with me, or everybody else, and I don't like those odds

I see your posts as the voice of reason, why some people are empathising with the poor civic driver is baffling. I think it could be the desire some people have to post contrary views.

[Johnnytheboy]

GC8 said:

Stong in this thread, the stupidity is.

Well, quite.

[Fastra]

br d said:

Fastra said:

br d said:

This thread is parallel universe time. Whatever was said or initiated the Civic driver could have faced the bloke physically or driven away safely after the bloke left, instead he chose to deliberately run him over risking killing him.

I am stunned by the responses here.

I'm stunned that you're stunned.
You do realise that not everyone is the typical PH user don't you?
Said Civic driver might have been 8 stone ringing wet and not at all the confrontational type (I know, I know, but these weak types do exist...!!!), so after the tone of the conversation sank in, thought, not being in a rational frame of mind due to being scared witless, " fk it, I;m not hanging round to find out"

Just perhaps eh?

Well, aside from the fact that the OP has stated that the Civic driver clearly made some sort of verbal threat which would negate your point somewhat, if you are the sort of person that is so terrified of a situation like this that driving into someone in blind panic, rather than waiting 1 second for them to depart, is the only conclusion they can reach I would suggest that they shouldn't be behind a wheel in the first place.

Regardless, I'm leaving the thread, something is either seriously wrong with me, or with everybody else, and I don't like those odds

Edited by br d on Sunday 29th March 14:29

All front, right up until the crunch!
I've met plenty of people like this, usually playing football, giving it the 'I am', right up until you're in their face and demanding a better explanation. Of course he made a verbal threat (after all he's in his protective metal box and no-one could possibly touch him) but on seeing the hairy arsed van driver up against his window his arse went and he panicked.

I'm not sympathising with the Civic driver and saying what he did was right, only keeping my mind open to extenuating circumstances as to why he could have acted like he did.

[xRIEx]

br d said:

This thread is parallel universe time. Whatever was said or initiated the Civic driver could have faced the bloke physically or driven away safely after the bloke left, instead he chose to deliberately run him over risking killing him.

I am stunned by the responses here.

Coulda shoulda woulda.

xRIEx said:

Several confusions taking place (in the thread, or perceptions in general):

- 'how people should behave' confused with 'how people do behave'

[stichill99]

Once while exiting a roundabout, my lane on dual carriageway in built up area I accelerated to get in front of a van on my inside. I believed it was done safely in plenty time but the next thing I knew the van was 2 inches from my rear bumper,so close I couldn't see the windscreen. It was slow moving traffic so I accelerated away when I could and looked in mirror to such rage on van drivers face it quite shocked me.
Traffic slowed and once again he was 2 inches from my bumper. I turned off into housing estate as I was worried for my cars health and my own. Oh F**K he followed. I drove like an idiot in a built up area to get away,I stupidly overtook a bus and he tried to but was met by oncoming traffic so I turned into a cul de sac and parked out of site,got out of car only to see white van man going like hell to try and catch me.
I can say in all honesty if I had been blocked by traffic and he had come to my car I would have run the C**T over aswell!

[MrBarry123]

As has been mentioned, the running down of the van driver is completely indefensible unless there was an immediate threat to someone's life.

Van driver is an idiot for getting out of his vehicle though - who the hell does that?! Only thuggy tts do that.

[TheFinners]

The st all of the keyboard warriors on here spurt out never ceases to amaze...

[Strawman]

I like how much of the expert analysis excusing the Civic driver for doing what he did is based on pure speculation but delivered with the solemnity of a carefully considered judgement.

[LudaMusser]

rambo19 said:

Must admit, I would not of got involved.

I called the Police once because I saw two guys firing an air rifle at members of the public, one of whom was a girl who got hit in the face. They'd fired at me and hit a bag I was carrying, they did'nt realise I knew where they were hiding. I later gave evidence and went to court three times, they both got six months.

I've always said I would'nt give evidence again because of the hassle that was involved but I guess until I see something that warrants giving evidence again I won't know for sure.

My main issue was that I live in a small city and people have a long memory.

[Bennet]

MrBarry123 said:

As has been mentioned, the running down of the van driver is completely indefensible unless there was an immediate threat to someone's life.

Van driver is an idiot for getting out of his vehicle though - who the hell does that?! Only thuggy tts do that.

You see, I read that post and think "Yep. Sounds like a fair summary of the situation."

But other PH members look at the same words and letters and somehow see "Good man, Civic driver. The guy obviously deserved it and I'd have done the same." - and react accordingly.

[greygoose]

Strawman said:

I like how much of the expert analysis excusing the Civic driver for doing what he did is based on pure speculation but delivered with the solemnity of a carefully considered judgement.

Exactly and sad how few people would give evidence in court, probably the same people who moan about the police and justice system failing them.

[Burwood]

I would suggest anyone who gets out of their car is looking for a fight so if i saw someone approaching me and not looking too happy i would assume an assault is about to unfold. Road rage is common in rural surrey. The tractors, horse folk in their 'polite' vests and hatched helmets and general poor driving..........