SUV driver attempts to kill cyclist, smashes into salon

[heebeegeetee]

It is a re-post but I thought possibly deserving wider attention.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/motorist-arre...

[heebeegeetee]

sc0tt said:

The cyclist kicked the car.

All bets are off.

But he's autistic, so he's entitled to ride er, like a nutter.

I think you're wrong though, and that it will make things worse. It needs to be determined how it came into the open domain that the cyclist kicked the car, because if it becomes clear that that was the reason the SUV was driven over a cycle and then smashed into a salon endangering all within - then the driver is in trouble.

She should have used the standard get-out-of-jail card of smidsy or 'sun in my eyes'. By saying she did everything deliberately places her in deep st.

[heebeegeetee]

myvision said:

Five kids in the car and she does that!!!!!!!!!

You have to raise the next generation of SUV drivers somehow.

[heebeegeetee]

Hoofy said:

"I'd like to report an incident. A cyclist kicked my car and cycled off. He was wearing a hi-vis jacket and riding some kind of bicycle. Hello, are you still there? Hello?"

So what would you suggest? Using your car as a weapon is completely out of the question to the sane, and I may or may not feel like squaring up to someone.

If a cyclist kicked my car, I almost certainly wouldn't do anything, because a) it's unlikely to cost much to repair, and b) it's such a rare occurrence that it's unlikely to ever happen to me again. (Unless I'm a complete tt who hasn't got the nous to stay out of trouble).

[heebeegeetee]

skyrover said:

Really?

Well what would you suggest I do?

[heebeegeetee]

skyrover said:

Have a word...

I'm not advocating hitting him back, but at the very least confront him over it

I said I may or may not confront him, it would depend on the situation and what was going on. It may depend on whether I think it's worth risking my life or well being for a bit of kicked tin or a few quid.

[heebeegeetee]

Do any of you tits moaning about cycling and registration plates wear reg plates as pedestrians? Cos you can kick a car on foot a damn sight easier than you can on bike, I reckon.

[heebeegeetee]

TopOnePercent said:

Well, then they won't be kicking anymore cars.

They're the author of their own misfortune, seeking to use an innocent parties inability to identify them as excuse for vandalism and criminal damage. Didn't pan out the way they hoped? No tears.

How do you know all that? How do you know the bint hadn't already tried to kill the cyclist, before going on to try to kill people in the hair salon?

You've assumed the cyclist is guilty. Perhaps you also think the hair stylists were guilty too, and deserved a good smashing into?

[heebeegeetee]

rhinochopig said:

THAT'S more like a Pistonheads response!

From the front doors this time. Well, through the windows I guess. Not sure how that works.

You have to laugh though,. As someone said, in a 20 or 30 mph zone she's lost control of her car, driven over a bicycle, across a pavement and smashed into a salon that had people inside working, interrupted the salon's trading for gawd knows how long, no doubt caused deep distress to the 5 children inside the car and no doubt caused considerable delay as the bib carry out their extensive investigations. Had there been people on the pavement she would have smashed them into the salon, and imagine how that would have gone down with the kids.

But it's the cyclist who deserves to die 'cos he kicked a bit of metal.

[heebeegeetee]

Serious question Jimbob - your profile says you live in Manchester and I happen to live in Birmingham. In Birmingham there are so few cyclists that you might almost say there are effectively zero. Certainly, in a year of commuting in and out of Brum I'd be really hard pushed to say I have received any delay due to cyclists.

Is Manchester so really different? Are there so many cyclists there that they cause a genuine nuisance? I'm trying to understand just why you have such a big issue with cyclists, when as a nation, outside of London anyway, we have so few of them.

[heebeegeetee]

TopOnePercent said:

Calm down dear, you're getting all emotional.

No I'm not, it's a perfectly straight forward question; and the rest of your post is a load of nonsense.

You stated that the cyclist was the author of his misfortune. I'm simply asking how you know that.

Was the business owner the author of his misfortune too, 'cos his business is, if not in ruins, very badly damaged?

You say cars/drivers are identifiable, yet car park dings and scrapes (and far worse of course) are common place, where the victim has to bear the cost. The cyclist has done no more or worse than this.

So, nobody's getting emotional, it's just that you're talking complete bks and you're guilty of the same double standards as most car drivers. (And before you get all emotional about that, I'm a car driver too, not a cyclist).

Edited by heebeegeetee on Tuesday 24th June 11:42

[heebeegeetee]

jimbop1 said:

There's a good few in Manchester but I work in Essex and travel into London a lot.

I don't have a big issue with cyclist, believe it or not, it's the ones that think they can do whatever they want and turn so aggressive doing it.

I'd say car drivers are far, far worse, and they're in a vehicle that can do far more damage, far more likley to kill, but I don't see you going on about them.

[heebeegeetee]

TopOnePercent said:

Its hardly extreme violence. You've clearly never known real violence to make such a ludicrous assertion.

Cyclists can either:
Stop vandalising cars,
Stop running away after provoking a confrontation,
Wear identification such as a licence plate,
Or people will continue removing them from their cycles in order to force identification.

All the hysterics around "nearly killed" just means you don't know or follow the rules of the road. Most cyclists I've known aren't routinely "nearly killed" on their way to work. So can we move beyond the emotive bks as justification for common assault, which can be how attacking vehicles is interpreted by the victim. At a minimum it is criminal damage and inexcusable, and for any rational person, indefensible.

I think I have to say that I have absolutely no idea what you're on about (but I feel a quote out of context coming on).

[heebeegeetee]

http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/chris-peck/whos-to-blam...

[heebeegeetee]

TopOnePercent said:

ok, give me 3 realistic ways to identify a fleeing Lycra lout that don't involve unseating them

So what do you think is likely to happen next, and how do you think you become better off? If you're seen, in your easily identifiable vehicle, to be using your car as a weapon, then you're in deep st. Leaving aside whether you injure the cyclist or not, he is very highly unlikely to come off worse than you in the eyes of the law.

Mind you having said that, if you really do want to get the cyclist, the very best thing you can do is to follow the cyclist well away from the location where he kicked your car, if possible follow him home and leave it to another day.

Then on the other day, simply drive into the back of him and kill him, and say the sun got in your eyes or something or that you just didn't see him. Say you weren't expecting a cyclist to be there, that's worked in the past.

Then face the full weight of the law and accept the highly trivial sentence you receive - get it right and won't do custody, won't be banned, might not even be fined, and then you are free to lead the rest of your life knowing that you well and truly won.

'Cos that is the reality in a great many (the vast majority) of the cases where a driver has killed a cyclist or biker.

[heebeegeetee]

jimbop1 said:

My first quote was due to me honestly believing that any male would not take action upon somebody that kicked their car.

That's not being thuggish, or caveman like, as someone pointed out... It's purely natural male behaviour.

No it isn't - it's the thickos behavior. As I said, what 'action' are you going to take, that's likely to put you in a better position?

[heebeegeetee]

jimbop1 said:

Serious question...who agrees with this?

You still haven't said what you'd actually do.

[heebeegeetee]

TopOnePercent said:

No it doesn't. Attacking the car is a fact, the fear is the perception that makes the assault in combination with the act.

Fear that you were "nearly killed" when in fact you were completely unharmed, is a perception lacking a fact to make it anything.

I don't think it's anything to worry about. The standards of driving is so st out there that it really doesn't bother me that the occasional muppet gets the odd kick. In the overall scheme of things it will still amount to a great deal less cost than other car drivers inflict one way or another.

[heebeegeetee]

Johnnytheboy said:

walm said:

Johnnytheboy said:

That's one of those links that you can deduce the likely answer from, simply by reading it.

So you disagree with the data and conclusions?

Only read the first few lines, got the tone of the piece and left.

If the data doesn't suit their bias they won't read it; if it does they'll quote it.

[heebeegeetee]

So - we've got a woman in a 2.5 tonne vehicle who has driven over a bicycle and /or cyclist, over the pavement and smashed into a shop, with 5 (no doubt hysterical) kids inside, all apparently in a 20mph zone, and ALL anyone wants to talk about is cyclists.

Does this not show that the average driver out there, and possibly the majority of PHers (which thus may reflect that the majority of drivers 'out there' would think the same) has either completely and totally lost the plot or perhaps never had a grasp on it in the first place - while we're riding about at speed in our 1 - 2 tonne vehicles?

The woman smashed into a shop or salon, with kids inside the vehicle. Isn't that all we should be talking about? And if anyone wants to say we need to talk about why the woman did this - well, there are no good or valid reasons at all are there, other than imo we need worry about the grasp on reality that a great many out there have.