Cyclist posts video of London road rage assault online
Discussion
skinley said:
GilbertGutbucket said:
nickythesaint said:
On the beeb he (49 yo Simon Page) said he friend tapped the car with his hand
Tapped? Yeah right! He was lucky only to get tapped back being as (sadly) the driver's punch didn't connect properly.Cyclist tried to show off in front of his lycra clad buddies. Cyclist failed. Cyclist got punched in the face. I laughed.
I'm pretty sure the cyclist wont be so brave before 'tapping' another car.
Edited by skinley on Tuesday 12th July 23:31
heebeegeetee said:
ChiChoAndy said:
I'm sure many people are sick of these threads. Yes, motorists injure and kill cyclists, and I'm sure cyclists do their own share of maiming and killing. However, driving or riding like a dick is prevalent to all modes of transport. Riding a light machine that has less chance of killing does not mean they are free from criticism.
Doesn't justify or explain though how there comes to be pages and pages and pages of these threads. I honestly do *not* know how or why so many drivers manage to conjure up so much difficulty with cyclists. Drivers need to concentrate more on their own driving, which is very likely to be s
t.
R12HCO said:
Are you real? So you are saying its acceptable to smash someones car to bits but not acceptable for the owner to react?
Even in the extreme situation where someone turns up with a golf club and starts literally smashing your car to bits for no reason, it's not acceptable to (try and) punch them in the face. It's not legitimate self defence - it's property - and for all you know it may kill them.trashbat said:
ven in the extreme situation where someone turns up with a golf club and starts literally smashing your car to bits for no reason, it's not acceptable to (try and) punch them in the face. It's not legitimate self defence - it's property - and for all you know it may kill them.
I believe they're talking about making defence of property a legitimate cause for causing injury to someone else.However, if your car is so badly made that "tapping" it will cause a problem, and your driving is so bad that you get close enough to be tapped (while overtaking, obviously) then frankly, you have little cause for complaint, IMO.
aizvara said:
ChiChoAndy said:
I'm sure many people are sick of these threads. Yes, motorists injure and kill cyclists, and I'm sure cyclists do their own share of maiming and killing. However, driving or riding like a dick is prevalent to all modes of transport. Riding a light machine that has less chance of killing does not mean they are free from criticism.
Of course, and criticism is fine. Agreeing (as some posters have) with the assault of a cyclist (because cyclists deserve it) is not. There's also been the presumption that the cyclist was at fault, and that cyclists in general are at fault for motorists' impatience/aggression/inattention. In the end, it seems to come down to: if its so bad, why don't you stop cycling. Well, I've not died yet and I'd rather not add to rush hour traffic for a 6 mile roundtrip, but I am constantly re-evaluating my use of the bike daily, due to appalling behaviour from motorists.Oh, and I'd still like an answer to my question before: what do "eco-cyclists" actually do which makes all you anti-cyclists presume arrogance and entitlement? As a side point; how do you know they don't also drive a non-eco-friendly car (like me)?
The attitude that I see here, I now presume of the more aggressive/careless drivers I encounter. As I said in my last post; I can only presume that relationship works both ways.
trashbat said:
ven in the extreme situation where someone turns up with a golf club and starts literally smashing your car to bits for no reason, it's not acceptable to (try and) punch them in the face. It's not legitimate self defence - it's property - and for all you know it may kill them.
I think me and you come from two very different 'worlds'. aizvara said:
Oh, and I'd still like an answer to my question before: what do "eco-cyclists" actually do which makes all you anti-cyclists presume arrogance and entitlement? As a side point; how do you know they don't also drive a non-eco-friendly car (like me)?
I guess some may see a cyclist as a target for the frustration that they feel about the green taxes (VED etc.) and the general establishment position of trying to crush the middle, working classes with rules, regulations and taxes and spouting doom and gloom about the planet (their view not necessarily mine).I think it is a 'them and us' situation and cyclists are so far removed from most drivers being able to associate them with an 'us' i.e. they don't recognise any of the traits the cyclists show as something they would do, that it gives them a chance to categorise people as different to themselves.
Edit: Jeez that was psychological claptrap wasn't it?
kambites said:
I believe they're talking about making defence of property a legitimate cause for causing injury to someone else.
However, if your car is so badly made that "tapping" it will cause a problem, and your driving is so bad that you get close enough to be tapped (while overtaking, obviously) then frankly, you have little cause for complaint, IMO.
Regardless of the law, if you were damaging said property, you'd have little moral claim for minor injuries picked up in the other person's suitable restraint.However, if your car is so badly made that "tapping" it will cause a problem, and your driving is so bad that you get close enough to be tapped (while overtaking, obviously) then frankly, you have little cause for complaint, IMO.
However there have been plenty of cases where people have been punched or otherwise hit in the head during an argument and have subsequently died of head injuries due to some existing condition, a fall or just incredibly bad luck. Such an outcome was never the intention of the person who hit them and yet they've gone down for manslaughter or possibly even murder. If there's any doubt that what you're doing may result in this, it's not legitimate, certainly not in defence of property rather than life.
It's embarassing to see the amount of complete idiots on this thread.
Seeing as you clearly never venture outside your metal boxes, let me explain this to you. Getting hit or crushed by a ton and a half of metal is not something you just shrug off, it means serious injury or the end of your life and thus yes.. its quite likely you will take it personally or take action to alert the driver to your presence.
Anyone who believes that cyclist deserved to be attacked is an absolute bellend, there is absolutely no argument in that. It's very fortunate the attacker was such a poor shot and that nothing worse resulted.
Seeing as you clearly never venture outside your metal boxes, let me explain this to you. Getting hit or crushed by a ton and a half of metal is not something you just shrug off, it means serious injury or the end of your life and thus yes.. its quite likely you will take it personally or take action to alert the driver to your presence.
Anyone who believes that cyclist deserved to be attacked is an absolute bellend, there is absolutely no argument in that. It's very fortunate the attacker was such a poor shot and that nothing worse resulted.
trashbat said:
However there have been plenty of cases where people have been punched or otherwise hit in the head during an argument and have subsequently died of head injuries due to some existing condition, a fall or just incredibly bad luck. Such an outcome was never the intention of the person who hit them and yet they've gone down for manslaughter or possibly even murder.
That's the definition of manslaughter, is it not? 
nouze said:
will_ said:
Sharing the road means making allowances for others, including cyclists.
It's a shame that cyclists don't make any allowances for others. They assume that the road will be made clear for them (sense of entitlement no1), or if there is no space - eg during rush hour in London - that they can squeeze through at all cost (sense of entitlement no2). I always make sure to leave space on the nearside, does that make any difference though? f
k no, there will always be a selfish tt trying to pass on the outside where there's no space.Question to all you cyclists out there, is it true that modern bikes don't have brakes?
Cyclists do (constantly) have to make allowances for others - those who don't bother checking mirrors, indiciating, pull into cycle lanes, swerve accross traffic, fail to give way, turn right or left without thinking, open car doors, step off kerbs without looking. I am happy to go on. I'm not sure how you "see" a cyclist assuming that the road will be made clear? And I'm not sure how filtering is a "sense of entitlement"? Maybe you can explain. What I can assure you of is that cyclists are entitled to use the roads.
kambites said:
What the hell is a fixie?
A fixie bike does not have a freehub, i.e. the pedals always rotate with the wheels. Nothing wrong with that in principle, it is meant to be good for technique and fitness. Unfortunately a few complete nobbers have turned it into a fashion thing. They take the brakes off, fit really narrow bars and wear stupid clothes. Think 'rise of the idiots' from Nathan Barley, and you're basically there.
I think they're trying to copy the look of inner city bike messengers, without having the actual skills.
y2blade said:
skinley said:
GilbertGutbucket said:
nickythesaint said:
On the beeb he (49 yo Simon Page) said he friend tapped the car with his hand
Tapped? Yeah right! He was lucky only to get tapped back being as (sadly) the driver's punch didn't connect properly.Cyclist tried to show off in front of his lycra clad buddies. Cyclist failed. Cyclist got punched in the face. I laughed.
I'm pretty sure the cyclist wont be so brave before 'tapping' another car.
Edited by skinley on Tuesday 12th July 23:31
Edited by budgie smuggler on Wednesday 13th July 10:48
Ok, we are always hearing how cyclists assume the driver is going to pull out, close the gap, etc, as par for the course. Is it OK if car drivers do the same for cyclists? That would save any arguments over who can think who is going to do what, and whether that is an affront to that particular mode of transport.
SuperHangOn said:
I'm just trying to grasp PH logic here- a Focus ST or a big stereo is unacceptable and should be punished by corporal punishment for its chavness but pikies/thugs jumping out of cars to beat up cyclists is applauded? 
There are more than a few experienced and mature members here who drive and cycle. The idiots who think that "the cyclist did something to deserve it" are just that, idiots. They probably haven't cycled since they were a child, and see cyclists as "people who can't afford cars like mine".I've long thought that potential drivers should first be compelled to cycle on the roads, a minimum 100 miles or so, before they are allowed to pass a driving test. I'm sure that'd teach some people just how awful some motorists are.
kambites said:
That's the definition of manslaughter, is it not?
I don't know that there have ever been murder convictions in these circumstances, but I wouldn't find it enormously surprising.Here's a manslaughter case: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4020846.Bouncer_ad...
And for an unpleasant bit of symmetry, here's a cyclist that killed someone: http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/9007780.Cyclist_adm...
ZesPak said:
Oh, and "it's like sounding a horn", no it isn't, look for "Airzound", that's like sounding a horn.
No, that is sounding a horn.Tapping a car is like sounding a horn as it makes a driver aware of your presense. And don't forget, it can only be done if the car is so dangerously close you can touch it. If it comes down to having to tap a car to avoid being run off the road, or having a crash, I'd tap the car everytime. It would be idiotic not to - much as not using the horn in your car, but crashing instead, is insanely stupid (which won't stop the argument, but quelle surprise).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff