Another "cyclist vs driver" rage story in the news...

[thelawnet1]

DrTre said:

thelawnet1 said:

Not particularly? It's a broken window with no injuries, and it was the leading item on the news.

From what I can see it's an item buried in the UK, regions, London section. Hardly front page, but perhaps it is on the TV.

When I read the story yesterday, it was number 1 on their sidebar. It was also prominently featured in every other newspaper.

There are road rage attacks 365 days a year, many where people are actually injured.

[Cotty]

Torquey said:

I'm sure there's a lot more to the story and it would have been good to see video footage.

So she "told him to be more considerate" and he smashed her window

Looks like the cyclist was reacting to more than that. She must have been pretty close if the cyclist could touch the roof when she passed.

[popeyewhite]

thelawnet1 said:

DrTre said:

thelawnet1 said:

Not particularly? It's a broken window with no injuries, and it was the leading item on the news.

From what I can see it's an item buried in the UK, regions, London section. Hardly front page, but perhaps it is on the TV.

When I read the story yesterday, it was number 1 on their sidebar. It was also prominently featured in every other newspaper.

There are road rage attacks 365 days a year, many where people are actually injured.

It's possible that the baby on the back seat might have something to do with it.

[anonymous-user]

DrTre said:

Pretty justified shock and horror though isn't it?

There was as much information about what had happened previously as can be gleaned though, and credit to her for actually having an intuition at why the cyclist might have been annoyed (not that it excuses assault).

In the absence of being able to interview the cyclist, what do you expect the BBC to report?

It's a shame there wasn't a fire as well, maybe a bit of plague for good measure? The amount, or lack of information is damning, smashing the window regardless wasn't on.

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 21st October 14:02

[DrTre]

thelawnet1 said:

When I read the story yesterday, it was number 1 on their sidebar. It was also prominently featured in every other newspaper.

There are road rage attacks 365 days a year, many where people are actually injured.

Fair enough, and yes I agree there are other cases to be reported but it's always been the way to put the 'best' story up front. I imagine they're all shocking, but it doesn't take anything away from this particular incident though does it?

Undoubtedly there had been previous between them, I'm just not sure why people are having a go at the reporting when there is only one side of the story to report on at the moment.

I've been cut up loads, accidentally, and never thought to deliberately damage a car in retaliation, that's the bit I struggle to comprehend and wouldn't want to try and justify. Neither would I ever use my car to do anything to another road user.

[DrTre]

yonex said:

It's a shame there wasn't a fire as well, maybe a bit of plague for good measure? The amount, or lack of information is damning, smashing the window regardless wasn't on.

Edited by yonex on Wednesday 21st October 14:02

OK, OK so you think the report was full of hyperbole?
Well it pretty much just reported the woman's words verbatim so yes it's going to be loaded, but I'm still at a loss on what more balance they could show?

Bloody hell, I'm not even sure what this argument is about considering everyone seems to agree smashing the window was not a bright thing to do

Edit... It's me isn't it? I'm banging on... Right I'll shut up now.

Edited by DrTre on Wednesday 21st October 14:31

[anonymous-user]

DrTre said:

OK, OK so you think the report was full of hyperbole?
Well it pretty much just reported the woman's words verbatim so yes it's going to be loaded, but I'm still at a loss on what more balance they could show?

Bloody hell, I'm not even sure what this argument is about considering everyone seems to agree smashing the window was not a bright thing to do

1. That the BBC is, or is not, the equivalent of Fox news.
2. That there is a trigger to the incident that is as yet unknown

And yes, smashing the window was a silly thing to do.

[budgie smuggler]

bbc said:

"I guess, in hindsight the cyclist may have thought we were too far on his side of the road and there wasn't enough room to get past us, but he still managed to cycle past us.

Translation: We passed the cyclist really closely, and made him cross enough to chase us down and smack the car with a d-lock.

bbc said:

"When we caught up with him I leaned out of the window and said: 'Have some consideration, we've got 'L' plates on and a baby in the back'.

Translation: I told him to fk off, lycra wearing pleb, pay some road tax etc

bbc said:

"I think I will never say anything again, you just don't know who you are speaking to," she added.

Translation: I love calling people a out of my car window, even when it is clearly my mistake, and a simple apology would diffuse the situation. But it's backfired this time, so I won't do it for a couple of weeks.

[numtumfutunch]

budgie smuggler said:

bbc said:

"I guess, in hindsight the cyclist may have thought we were too far on his side of the road and there wasn't enough room to get past us, but he still managed to cycle past us.

Translation: We passed the cyclist really closely, and made him cross enough to chase us down and smack the car with a d-lock.

bbc said:

"When we caught up with him I leaned out of the window and said: 'Have some consideration, we've got 'L' plates on and a baby in the back'.

Translation: I told him to fk off, lycra wearing pleb, pay some road tax etc

bbc said:

"I think I will never say anything again, you just don't know who you are speaking to," she added.

Translation: I love calling people a out of my car window, even when it is clearly my mistake, and a simple apology would diffuse the situation. But it's backfired this time, so I won't do it for a couple of weeks.

Agreed

[popeyewhite]

numtumfutunch said:

budgie smuggler said:

bbc said:

"I guess, in hindsight the cyclist may have thought we were too far on his side of the road and there wasn't enough room to get past us, but he still managed to cycle past us.

Translation: We passed the cyclist really closely, and made him cross enough to chase us down and smack the car with a d-lock.

bbc said:

"When we caught up with him I leaned out of the window and said: 'Have some consideration, we've got 'L' plates on and a baby in the back'.

Translation: I told him to fk off, lycra wearing pleb, pay some road tax etc

bbc said:

"I think I will never say anything again, you just don't know who you are speaking to," she added.

Translation: I love calling people a out of my car window, even when it is clearly my mistake, and a simple apology would diffuse the situation. But it's backfired this time, so I won't do it for a couple of weeks.

Agreed

And that's how you judge people based your own low standards.

[SteveSteveson]

budgie smuggler said:

bbc said:

"I guess, in hindsight the cyclist may have thought we were too far on his side of the road and there wasn't enough room to get past us, but he still managed to cycle past us.

Translation: We passed the cyclist really closely, and made him cross enough to chase us down and smack the car with a d-lock.

Wouldn't surprise me if this was the case. She claims that the cyclist was not happy about the amount of room up the inside, but I can't help thinking she is entirely missing out that they had just squeezed past said cyclist. The whole thing seems highly unlikely the way she has put it. Smashing the window was a major overreaction, but I can't help thinking there is much more to this.

[popeyewhite]

SteveSteveson said:

budgie smuggler said:

bbc said:

"I guess, in hindsight the cyclist may have thought we were too far on his side of the road and there wasn't enough room to get past us, but he still managed to cycle past us.

Translation: We passed the cyclist really closely, and made him cross enough to chase us down and smack the car with a d-lock.

Wouldn't surprise me if this was the case. She claims that the cyclist was not happy about the amount of room up the inside, but I can't help thinking she is entirely missing out that they had just squeezed past said cyclist. The whole thing seems highly unlikely the way she has put it. Smashing the window was a major overreaction, but I can't help thinking there is much more to this.

There is. The car had 'L' plates, a young couple driving and a baby on the back seat. The cyclist, if he had half a brain and a smaller sense of self-entitlement, should have held back and recognised the potential for disaster when duelling with such a vehicle. L plates + baby = avoid. Geddit?

[IroningMan]

popeyewhite said:

SteveSteveson said:

budgie smuggler said:

bbc said:

"I guess, in hindsight the cyclist may have thought we were too far on his side of the road and there wasn't enough room to get past us, but he still managed to cycle past us.

Translation: We passed the cyclist really closely, and made him cross enough to chase us down and smack the car with a d-lock.

Wouldn't surprise me if this was the case. She claims that the cyclist was not happy about the amount of room up the inside, but I can't help thinking she is entirely missing out that they had just squeezed past said cyclist. The whole thing seems highly unlikely the way she has put it. Smashing the window was a major overreaction, but I can't help thinking there is much more to this.

There is. The car had 'L' plates, a young couple driving and a baby on the back seat. The cyclist, if he had half a brain and a smaller sense of self-entitlement, should have held back and recognised the potential for disaster when duelling with such a vehicle. L plates + baby = avoid. Geddit?

Difficult to imagine circumstances which would justify what the cyclist is reported as doing, but remind me again how you avoid a car that is overtaking you - even one with L plates?

[wolves_wanderer]

Not to justify the cyclist's actions but it probably wouldn't have happened if they hadn't cut the cyclist up.

[thelawnet1]

popeyewhite said:

There is. The car had 'L' plates, a young couple driving and a baby on the back seat. The cyclist, if he had half a brain and a smaller sense of self-entitlement, should have held back and recognised the potential for disaster when duelling with such a vehicle. L plates + baby = avoid. Geddit?

Young couple? They are 30. Whatever the relevance of that is.

Most sensible, non-entitled people, don't shout at other road users when they are supervising learner drivers and carrying their young child in their car?

As for the learner aspect, there is a bit of a difference between 'that unfortunate learner has just stalled at the lights', and 'you nearly knocked me off'. In the former case, you can play the learner card all day long, in the latter apologies are in order, not 'I'm a learner'.

[popeyewhite]

thelawnet1 said:

popeyewhite said:

There is. The car had 'L' plates, a young couple driving and a baby on the back seat. The cyclist, if he had half a brain and a smaller sense of self-entitlement, should have held back and recognised the potential for disaster when duelling with such a vehicle. L plates + baby = avoid. Geddit?

Young couple? They are 30. Whatever the relevance of that is.

Most sensible, non-entitled people, don't shout at other road users when they are supervising learner drivers and carrying their young child in their car?

As for the learner aspect, there is a bit of a difference between 'that unfortunate learner has just stalled at the lights', and 'you nearly knocked me off'. In the former case, you can play the learner card all day long, in the latter apologies are in order, not 'I'm a learner'.

Not sure whether you're lacking in common sense or just spoiling for an argument. I suspect a bit of both. I've driven cars and motorbikes for 35 years and have learnt to give anything with an L plate a wide berth, this is also how I was taught to ride on a Police motorcycle course. I understand you think you know better though, because this is PH.

[Mr2Mike]

thelawnet1 said:

ORD said:

Enlighten us: what do you (guess / speculate / completely make up) as the reason to justify using a bike lock to smash someone's rear window?

Perhaps they had just attempted to run him over, thrown something at him, spat him, assaulted him, who knows?

So if any of those things happened, then the cyclist was entirely justified in smashing the rear window?

If you ran over my foot, would find it acceptable if I set your car on fire?

[anonymous-user]

popeyewhite said:

And that's how you judge people based your own low standards.

You were there I take it?

• edit but as you were taught to ride on a 'police motorcycle course' that's probably where you learnt your mystic powers

Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 21st October 16:22

[thelawnet1]

popeyewhite said:

Not sure whether you're lacking in common sense or just spoiling for an argument. I suspect a bit of both. I've driven cars and motorbikes for 35 years and have learnt to give anything with an L plate a wide berth, this is also how I was taught to ride on a Police motorcycle course. I understand you think you know better though, because this is PH.

How do you suppose a cyclist is to give a car a wide berth? It doesn't work like that.

Yes, if you have an engine, as you will in a car, or a motorcycle, then you can try to evade learners and other vehicles that appear to be badly driven, but cyclists aren't in that position.

[thelawnet1]

Mr2Mike said:

So if any of those things happened, then the cyclist was entirely justified in smashing the rear window?

If you ran over my foot, would find it acceptable if I set your car on fire?

Where did I say it was justifiable? Someone asked why the cyclist might have done this, I gave some possible reasons.