# Hackney rider pursued, knocked from bike.



## glenn forger (17 Feb 2016)

> A cyclist is seriously injured in hospital after a hit-and-run following a row with a driver in Stoke Newington.
> 
> The 38-year-old rider was involved in an argument with a woman, the driver of a small dark car, in Victorian Grove last Wednesday.
> 
> ...




http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-with-driver-in-stoke-newington-a3182651.html

There will be cctv very near there.


----------



## Leedsbusdriver (17 Feb 2016)

And the moral of the story is.


----------



## Jimidh (17 Feb 2016)

Leedsbusdriver said:


> And the moral of the story is.


Enlighten us


----------



## Leedsbusdriver (17 Feb 2016)

Jimidh said:


> Enlighten us


Cyclist shouts at motorist.Motorist doesn't like that.
Motorist uses vehicle to exact "revenge"
Cyclist ends up in hospital.
Work out the moral.


----------



## glenn forger (17 Feb 2016)

Where does it say there was shouting? You made it up. You have no idea what happened so you make stuff up to make the rider look at fault. It could have been the cyclist saying ""whoah!" for all you know. So, you are exploiting someone who is badly hurt in order to lie about them.


----------



## Leedsbusdriver (17 Feb 2016)

Where does it say there wasn't shouting.Are you making things up now?


----------



## glenn forger (17 Feb 2016)

You stated that the cyclist shouted. You are lying about someone who's seriously injured. Why?


----------



## PK99 (17 Feb 2016)

Leedsbusdriver said:


> Where does it say there wasn't shouting.Are you making things up now?



There was certainly an argument.


----------



## Leedsbusdriver (17 Feb 2016)

Must employ a proof reader before i post on here to satisfy the pedants on this board.Generally if two people have an argument there will be raised voices.Am i wrong?


----------



## Leedsbusdriver (17 Feb 2016)

Exploiting an injured cyclist


----------



## glenn forger (17 Feb 2016)

You have no idea. You don't know what happened. You were so anxious to blame the cyclist you made stuff up. Someone's in hospital and you're using their injuries to make stuff up to blame cyclists. It's odd behaviour.


----------



## Leedsbusdriver (17 Feb 2016)

[QUOTE 4160131, member: 45"]That we should let drivers behave how they like without saying anything?[/QUOTE]
Better that than lying in a hospital bed.


----------



## Leedsbusdriver (17 Feb 2016)

glenn forger said:


> You have no idea. You don't know what happened. You were so anxious to blame the cyclist you made stuff up. Someone's in hospital and you're using their injuries to make stuff up to blame cyclists. It's odd behaviour.


Very odd indeed.


----------



## Leedsbusdriver (17 Feb 2016)

[QUOTE 4160143, member: 45"]I've had plenty of conversations with drivers where they've understood what I've said and shown remorse. So I should stop doing that? That's tantamount to bullying by proxy.[/QUOTE]
Carry on mate.


----------



## glenn forger (17 Feb 2016)

Leedsbusdriver said:


> Carry on mate.



You've just contradicted yourself.


If a driver nearly hurts you, is it acceptable to shout anything for fear of being blamed for escalating?


----------



## Levo-Lon (17 Feb 2016)

Ffs..


----------



## Leedsbusdriver (17 Feb 2016)

meta lon said:


> Ffs..


This forum is great.


----------



## Hitchington (17 Feb 2016)

Whether or not there was shouting (remember we weren't there) it doesn't excuse attempted murder with a motor vehicle. The moral is: don't try and kill people because they've remonstrated with you.


----------



## Markymark (17 Feb 2016)

The moral of this story is don't spout and decide what happens when you haven't a clue.

I had a close pass once. Raised my right hand palm up. Didn't say a word. No rude gesture. Car screeched to a halt. Started to reverse. Changed their mind then sped off.

No doubt that would have been an arguement and partly my fault?


----------



## PK99 (17 Feb 2016)

[QUOTE 4160131, member: 45"]That we should let drivers behave how they like without saying anything?[/QUOTE]

It is quite possible to have a discussion with a driver who has made a mistake without launching into argument

2:50 into this one shows exactly what not to do.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPajA22Re_Q


----------



## Hitchington (17 Feb 2016)

PK99 said:


> It is quite possible to have a discussion with a driver who has made a mistake without launching into argument
> Q


Of course it's possible, but what if it does develop into an argument? We are human after all. Someone might of had a bad day, or maybe neither person will concede, you know, happens all the time.


----------



## glenn forger (17 Feb 2016)

Would:

_"Please be careful!"_

_"I will kill you!"_

qualify as an argument?


----------



## PK99 (17 Feb 2016)

Hitchington said:


> Of course it's possible, but what if it does develop into an argument? We are human after all. Someone might of had a bad day, or maybe neither person will concede, you know, happens all the time.



Yes it happens - the Amygdala or emotion generating part of the brain kicks in and stress responses result.
The wise thing to do is recognise and control the emotional response.


----------



## Profpointy (17 Feb 2016)

I've had people drive at me without a preceding argument. Intention to barge me out the way (if i hadn't done a new pants emergency stop) - so deliberate intent to intimidate rather than hit I guess. Maybe 2 or 3 times in last 40 years so hardly everyday


----------



## snorri (17 Feb 2016)

Leedsbusdriver said:


> And the moral of the story is.


Never take press reports as gospel, particularly in relation to interactions between road users.


----------



## Hitchington (17 Feb 2016)

PK99 said:


> Yes it happens - the Amygdala or emotion generating part of the brain kicks in and stress responses result.
> The wise thing to do is recognise and control the emotional response.


Fine. Someone should have told this to the driver before they took it upon themselves to attempt to murder the cyclist.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (17 Feb 2016)

Leedsbusdriver said:


> Cyclist shouts at motorist.Motorist doesn't like that.
> Motorist uses vehicle to exact "revenge"
> Cyclist ends up in hospital.
> Work out the moral.



Don't p*ss off a psychopath in posession of a deadly weapon?


----------



## glenn forger (17 Feb 2016)

MissTillyFlop said:


> Don't p*ss off a psychopath in posession of a deadly weapon?



Silence can be a reproach, ignoring them can be provocative, any reaction at all would be treated as an escalation. It's very stupid to assign any blame cos you simply don't know.


----------



## MissTillyFlop (17 Feb 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Silence can be a reproach, ignoring them can be provocative, any reaction at all would be treated as an escalation. It's very stupid to assign any blame cos you simply don't know.


True. I was just trying to work out the cryptic riddle.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (17 Feb 2016)

Mod note:

This thread seems better suited to the cycling advocacy & safety section. Please try to discuss the incident sensibly without calling one another liars.


----------



## RoubaixCube (17 Feb 2016)

thats just down the road from me


----------



## glenn forger (17 Feb 2016)

In the Gazette now:



> *Road rage driver ploughs into cyclist after tailing him down Stoke Newington street*



http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/new...ing_him_down_stoke_newington_street_1_4422725


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Feb 2016)

I pray for witnesses.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Feb 2016)

Leedsbusdriver said:


> Cyclist shouts at motorist.Motorist doesn't like that.
> Motorist uses vehicle to exact "revenge"
> Cyclist ends up in hospital.
> Work out the moral.


_warning:Reductio ad absurdum argument follows, but I feel it warrants a response.
_
If a man hits a woman (harder than he meant to) and kills or maims her, because she disobeyed him, would you take a lesson that she should have obeyed him?


----------



## Leedsbusdriver (17 Feb 2016)

jefmcg said:


> _warning:Reductio ad absurdum argument follows, but I feel it warrants a response.
> _
> If a man hits a woman (harder than he meant to) and kills or maims her, because she disobeyed him, would you take a lesson that she should have obeyed him?


How did we get this far? I was just trying to say that maybe it might be a good idea not to get involved in an exchange of words with a person driving a potential killing machine. Now we are talking about beating women. This forum is weird.


----------



## glenn forger (17 Feb 2016)

Nope, you made stuff up to blame the cyclist then refused to say why, like you've just refused to answer that question. You have no idea what happened but you slagged off a badly injured person. It's an odd thing to do but refusing to explain or defend your view is just cowardly.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Feb 2016)

Leedsbusdriver said:


> I was just trying to say that maybe it might be a good idea not to get involved in an exchange of words with a person driving a potential killing machine.


Sorry, you are going to have to explain it to me. We mustn't cross someone who can kill us with a car, but that doesn't mean we have to obey someone who can kill us because they are physically stronger?

Where do you draw the line? Explain it to me like I am a three year old. How is this somehow the cyclist's fault, and the above example not the woman's fault?

Edit: to make it equivalent: a driver runs someone down because they shouted at them, and it's the cyclist's fault. A man who kills his wife because she shouted at him. Who's fault is that?


----------



## Tin Pot (17 Feb 2016)

Leedsbusdriver said:


> Cyclist shouts at motorist.Motorist doesn't like that.
> Motorist uses vehicle to exact "revenge"
> Cyclist ends up in hospital.
> Work out the moral.



Murderous drivers should be shot in the face in front of their families?


----------



## grumpyoldwoman (17 Feb 2016)

jefmcg said:


> _warning:Reductio ad absurdum argument follows, but I feel it warrants a response.
> _
> If a man hits a woman (harder than he meant to) and kills or maims her, because she disobeyed him, would you take a lesson that she should have obeyed him?



I took that as a reason to call the police and have him arrested and charged. The bloke in question being my soon to be ex husband! No woman deserves to be beaten by a man (even though he says it was my fault for being in the same room in MY house when he was drunk!)


----------



## Leedsbusdriver (17 Feb 2016)

Can I just say that this thread is going on ignore.I have more important things in my life than exchange pleasantries with random who won't acknowledge that sometimes the best thing to do sometimes is to keep your gob shut,which is just what I am going to do.


----------



## glenn forger (17 Feb 2016)

You call slagging off a badly injured person "exchanging pleasantries"?


----------



## Tin Pot (17 Feb 2016)

Leedsbusdriver said:


> Can I just say that this thread is going on ignore.I have more important things in my life than exchange pleasantries with random who won't acknowledge that sometimes the best thing to do sometimes is to keep your gob shut,which is just what I am going to do.



Just make sure you do it next time you're thinking of abusing a cyclist eh?


----------



## jefmcg (17 Feb 2016)

grumpyoldwoman said:


> I took that as a reason to call the police and have him arrested and charged. The bloke in question being my soon to be ex husband! No woman deserves to be beaten by a man (even though he says it was my fault for being in the same room in MY house when he was drunk!)


phew! and ouch. And I hope the f*cker is still in jail.

I don't think anyone would argue with what you did. Which is why i I picked a similar example to yours to show the fallacy in @Leedsbusdriver argument. 

I'd like to think he left the thread because he realised he was in the wrong. But honestly, I suspect he (like - possibly- the driver in the original story) didn't like to be contradicted, and took measures to end it.


----------



## Arrowfoot (17 Feb 2016)

I always wondered why the Serious Collision Unit are investigating cases where the elements of an attempted murder is apparent. No doubt that the unit can provide technical assistance but this is a serious crime and not the usual traffic matter.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (17 Feb 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Sorry, you are going to have to explain it to me. We mustn't cross someone who can kill us with a car, but that doesn't mean we have to obey someone who can kill us because they are physically stronger?
> 
> Where do you draw the line? Explain it to me like I am a three year old. How is this somehow the cyclist's fault, and the above example not the woman's fault?


The first part seems correct to me, if only from a survival point of view. But, of course, that begs the moral/legal questions of the second part. And I would hope that, in order to get beyond mere survival where might is right, the legal profession could intervene. Which in turn means that they'll need witnesses otherwise psycho at the wheel won't have to face charges and, voilà, we're back at might is right.


----------



## grumpyoldwoman (17 Feb 2016)

jefmcg said:


> phew! and ouch. And I hope the f*cker is still in jail.
> 
> .


No. He didn't get put in jail.Just got a restraining order.
And he rings up every so often (when drunk) asking when are we getting back together!


----------



## Arrowfoot (17 Feb 2016)

User said:


> The problem is that our criminal justice system, police, CPS, courts, treat assault with a car as careless driving.



That's my worry. It will have all the attention of serious traffic incident and nothing more. Keen to see how this progresses.


----------



## steveindenmark (17 Feb 2016)

[QUOTE 4160143, member: 45"]I've had plenty of conversations with drivers where they've understood what I've said and shown remorse, and I believe it's had a positive outcome. So I should stop doing that? That's tantamount to bullying by proxy.[/QUOTE]

I think it depends how you do it.

If you watch some of the Youtube clips the first thing the cyclist or motorist does is to start with a whole chain of expletives. Not a good way to start.

I think we all recall the very nice approach taken by the cyclist and car driver in London. That worked well.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Feb 2016)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> The first part seems correct to me, if only from a survival point of view.


I'd love someone to answer me so ... are you saying that we shouldn't "get into it" with drivers, from a survival point of view? So does that mean we shouldn't get into it with anyone better armed or stronger than us? If not, what's the difference? Should we treat drivers as lethal compared to other members of our society? How did we get to this place, where crossing a driver is putting our life in danger, but people seem to think that's the victim's fault.


----------



## Levo-Lon (18 Feb 2016)

jefmcg said:


> I'd love someone to answer me so ... are you saying that we shouldn't "get into it" with drivers, from a survival point of view? So does that mean we shouldn't get into it with anyone better armed or stronger than us? If not, what's the difference? Should we treat drivers as lethal compared to other members of our society? How did we get to this place, where crossing a driver is putting our life in danger, but people seem to think that's the victim's fault.




the problem with Cagers is that some have a change of personality once they are in their little car .
that space seems to make them aggressive ,unreasonable and woe betide anyone who dares to invade that space..
cyclists are smaller than them..and should move out of their way attitude ..
my step daughter is a case in point,lovely quiet none confrontational 30 something..
in her car she can and often does become a raging foul mouthed unhinged mad woman..
she has had other motorists chase her after an outburst..
She even does this when in a passenger seat if a car or anything makes a close pass or pulls out...its quite worrying ,she cant control it??
Cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians are the one's that usually end up hurt..from irrational behaviour.
im a calm driver , i was a little bit aggressive as a motorcyclist,especially after being wiped out,but i blame that on adrenalin overload..
Treat motorists as potencial man slaughter conviction cases in waiting would be my thought..
if you choose to fight fire with fire ,or you light a fire it may soon be out of control..

my 2p


----------



## Tin Pot (18 Feb 2016)

The answer is to carry a knife*.

If someone threatens you with their car, but fails to kill you - attack them with the knife. See how they like being put in fear of their life.

*Obviously a gun if your country of residence allows it.


----------



## glenn forger (18 Feb 2016)

Someone who uses two tons of metal against human flesh and blood is a sociopath. They don't need excuses. The "fight fire with fire" analogy is as dumb as a box of frogs cos yelling anything is not the same as deliberately running someone over with a car, anyone who thinks it is is retarded.


----------



## Nibor (18 Feb 2016)

PK99 said:


> It is quite possible to have a discussion with a driver who has made a mistake without launching into argument
> 
> 2:50 into this one shows exactly what not to do.
> 
> ...



It is also possible to have an argument without one of the protagonists resorting to assault or indeed attempted murder with a deadly weapon.


----------



## theclaud (18 Feb 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> I think it depends how you do it.
> 
> If you watch some of the Youtube clips the first thing the cyclist or motorist does* is to start with a whole chain of expletives.* Not a good way to start.
> 
> I think we all recall the very nice approach taken by the cyclist and car driver in London. That worked well.



I agree. It's a terrible disregard for timing. What you need to do is knock on the window, take a deep breath and say calmly, 'You need to give me _a lot_ more space than that.' And then if he doesn't appear contrite, you can pause and add 'You drooling f**kwit.'


----------



## theclaud (18 Feb 2016)

meta lon said:


> my 2p



You've overvalued it, if you don't mind my saying so.

It's not a loss of control - it's the exact opposite.


----------



## theclaud (18 Feb 2016)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> The first part seems correct to me, if only from a survival point of view.


Like @jefmcg, I disagree. The power that the aggressive motorist is exerting is not an inevitable product of being bigger and heavier - it resides to a far greater extent in the entitlement, which is socially reinforced by prevalent attitudes such as those displayed by Shouldn't-be-in-charge-of-a-bus.


----------



## Profpointy (18 Feb 2016)

this is turning into the classic internet argument. Both "sides" to this debate aren't necesserally as far apart as they appear to be.

To take another scenario - there's a noisy agressive stranger being a total arse in a pub - do you remonstrate or stay out of the way?

If the former and you get assaulted, despite it still being clearly the assaliant at fault the wisdom of remonstrating might be questioned, even whilst being praised for standing up to him.

Or to take a ludicrous example standing up to an armed robber might be seen as brave and praisworthy but not wise - but victim would not be blamed and it the robber would certainly have no defence.

Or for a real piece of justifiable victim blaming there's the case of the obnoxious journalist goading Buzz Aldein about the moon landings being faked and eventually getting thumped. Most people take some pleasure in blaming the victim there.

Just to be clear, I'm absolutely not blaming the cyclist for being assaulted here and and angry that assaults with vehicles are treated as minor traffic offenses rather than the violent assaults they are - however rude the cyclist was to the motorist


----------



## Levo-Lon (18 Feb 2016)

theclaud said:


> You've overvalued it, if you don't mind my saying so.
> 
> It's not a loss of control - it's the exact opposite.



Sruggling to see 'its the exact opposite ' part ? 
2p has no value anyway unless its added to a pint..

with regard to my Daughters behaviour ,i think a secret car cam would be a good idea so she could see her irrational outburst..
she has anxiety which may play a part?


----------



## Arrowfoot (18 Feb 2016)

User13710 said:


> None of the analogies offered, except for @jefmcg's first one, involve the relentless day-in day-out bullying behaviour and sense of entitlement by the larger more aggressive participant that @theclaud has referred to. 'Standing up to' that kind of behaviour involves other things than swearing and retaliating at the time of the aggression - it also involves challenging that set of attitudes every single time they try to appear, at work, in conversations, and in posts on here as well.



You can confront and challenge a rational person but common sense dictates that not all are rational and there are enough road rage incidents to learn from. There are other means to redress that wrong that will put the offender in a difficult place and make him or her pay the penalty. Overthinking, psychoanalysing and coming out with notions of entitlement is not going to make a nutjob a rational person. If you ride a tank on the road, I say go all out and take on the motorist.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (18 Feb 2016)

theclaud said:


> Like @jefmcg, I disagree. The power that the aggressive motorist is exerting is not an inevitable product of being bigger and heavier - it resides to a far greater extent in the entitlement, which is socially reinforced by prevalent attitudes such as those displayed by Shouldn't-be-in-charge-of-a-bus.


I was trying to separate the simple survival issue - avoiding unneccessary danger, which seems pretty uncontentious to me - from the ethical side of things. I think @Profpointy may have done a better job at separating the issues than I was capable of after a bottle of Rioja plus worries about the survival of a family friend who appears to have lost her duel with danger.


----------



## theclaud (18 Feb 2016)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I was trying to separate the simple survival issue - avoiding unneccessary danger, which seems pretty uncontentious to me - from the ethical side of things. I think @Profpointy may have done a better job at separating the issues than I was capable of after a bottle of Rioja plus worries about the survival of a family friend who appears to have lost her duel with danger.


Crikey.  Sorry to read that.


----------



## Tin Pot (18 Feb 2016)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I was trying to separate the simple survival issue - avoiding unneccessary danger, which seems pretty uncontentious to me - from the ethical side of things. I think @Profpointy may have done a better job at separating the issues than I was capable of after a bottle of Rioja plus worries about the survival of a family friend who appears to have lost her duel with danger.


Sorry to hear that dm.


----------



## Bimble (18 Feb 2016)

It is probably time to update the law regarding motoring offences and make punishments harsher so that drivers take their responsibility more seriously.

Racist thug slashes man with Samurai sword and gets a *5 year sentence*.

Quarter of drivers found guilty over cyclist deaths *did not even receive driving bans*.

If you, as a driver, understood that any harm you brought to others as a result of your driving was going to land you in jail (or lose you your license for 10 years or cost you a small fortune in fines, or all three!) you may be less likely to "lose it" and use your vehicle to intimidate or harm others.

With the number of helmet and dash cams around nowadays there should be plenty of occasions where video evidence clearly shows the drivers actions. Why can't these be used to help prosecute them?

Why aren't we showing programs on TV that highlight the *dangers* to more vulnerable road users and show the prosecutions of those committing these offences, instead of sensationalising the confrontations for advertising revenue.

I'm sure I would attract a rapid response from PC plod (and his armed colleagues) if I started pointing a gun at people in the local town centre, but driving like a maniac and threatening and endangering cyclists isn't treated in the same way. It should be.


----------



## Levo-Lon (18 Feb 2016)

A lot of people traval from A-B with no real recollection of the journey using auto pilot.regardless of the transport used.
it seems to go wrong when their sudenly awoken from their thoughts by another road user..
stresses of modern life i guess.


----------



## Rooster1 (18 Feb 2016)

I'm afraid to post anything in this thread.

I hope the cyclist is able to make a full recovery.


----------



## Levo-Lon (18 Feb 2016)

Rooster1 said:


> I'm afraid to post anything in this thread.
> 
> I hope the cyclist is able to make a full recovery.



why
its a perfectly good debate, some posters act in the same way as a road user might when they feel their space has been attacked ,angry over the top reaction for no real reason other than that.
so its a good example of human behaviour and over reaction to something that probabley could have been solved with 2 seconds of thought..live and let live ...


----------



## Poacher (18 Feb 2016)

Bimble said:


> With the number of helmet and dash cams around nowadays there should be plenty of occasions where video evidence clearly shows the drivers actions. Why can't these be used to help prosecute them?


Because the polis, and much more reprehensibly, the CPS, CGAF.
Ask Reginald Scot.


----------



## ufkacbln (18 Feb 2016)

Helmet cams do work, especially with liveried vehicles
Email company knowing full well that to driver is going to lie about it.... Then wh you get the reply sending he video pointing out that they hav been misled by their employee
Last one was a clear left hook, the driver claimed I was unlit and had cycled up on his inside as he turned


Rear video showed his vehicle lit up by the rear light, and the front video also showed the front light as well as the left hook


The manager was no happy a being made to look a fool and driver is no longer employed


----------



## fossyant (18 Feb 2016)

This thread went down hill.

Christ help the poor cyclist eh. Thank god nobody started some crap like this when I had my spine broken. 

In fighting.... grow up !


----------



## glenn forger (19 Feb 2016)

_The incident happened after he remonstrated with the woman driver after she cut him up. He claims she was talking on a mobile phone at the time and rather than apologise she gave him a torrent of verbal abuse and started driving at him at speed._

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...er-i-thought-i-was-going-to-die-a3184256.html


----------



## Levo-Lon (20 Feb 2016)

So you were actually wrong to chastise other members for saying the cyclist upset the driver then @glenn forger ..even tho the cyclist had a go at the driver..
im sure you could say sorry , maybe you just lost yout cool for a few seconds and went into one eh.. 
Ahh well, untill the next outburst then..Have a good weekend


----------



## glenn forger (20 Feb 2016)

meta lon said:


> So you were actually wrong to chastise other members for saying the cyclist upset the driver then



I would have been wrong if I had said that, yep. I said that it was utterly stupid to make up stuff that never happened and claim that that was the moral of the story. It's there, in my posts. That reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the man who is provoked by women who speak their mind. When he hits them he says it's their fault for speaking their mind. See what I mean? It's the same reasoning that abusers use.


----------



## classic33 (20 Feb 2016)

Leedsbusdriver said:


> Cyclist shouts at motorist.Motorist doesn't like that.
> Motorist uses vehicle to exact "revenge"
> Cyclist ends up in hospital.
> Work out the moral.





glenn forger said:


> Where does it say there was shouting? You made it up. You have no idea what happened so you make stuff up to make the rider look at fault. It could have been the cyclist saying ""whoah!" for all you know. So, you are exploiting someone who is badly hurt in order to lie about them.


----------



## glenn forger (20 Feb 2016)

Exactly, if you leave out the bit about nearly being hit by a driver playing with a phone the incident started with the yelling and makes the rider look at fault. So the moral is don't make snide judgements when you don't know the facts.


----------



## Levo-Lon (20 Feb 2016)

Yes Glenn ,leave bits out,change bits to suit, and hey presto..your argument wins ..

Cheers @classic33 ..saved me a job..


----------



## glenn forger (23 Mar 2016)

A 23-year-old woman was arrested on suspicion of GBH with intent, failing to stop at scene of collision and injury by dangerous driving. She was bailed until next month.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...le-courier-humbled-by-donations-a3209796.html


----------



## RoubaixCube (23 Mar 2016)

She should of done the honorable thing and handed herself in first thing instead of having people hunt her down for a month like an animal.

Utter scum. No doubt the judge will hand her a paltry fine and a few points on her license for admitting guilt before releasing her back into the wild where shes free to find another victim to drive her car at again.

bloody cowards.


----------



## Absinthe Minded (10 Apr 2016)

Leedsbusdriver said:


> Must employ a proof reader before i post on here to satisfy the pedants on this board.Generally if two people have an argument there will be raised voices.Am i wrong?


Well, you might be. That's why you used the word "generally", so you have answered your own question. The point is that you are making assumptions, and you know what they say about making assumptions...


----------



## steveindenmark (11 Apr 2016)

I think it is very difficult not to tell a driver what you think of them if they do something stupid and you are involved. But I think it is really unwise to then ride off in front of the driver you have just remonstrated with. Let them get away before you set off.


----------



## Nigeyy (12 Apr 2016)

I think I see both sides to this (btw, not saying I know what happened with the original incident).

On one hand, remonstrating a driver can have very unpleasant consequences; they are in a vastly bigger powered vehicle, you are on a very exposed bicycle. As much as you would like to give somebody a piece of your mind, is it worth it? Is it even something that would make a positive difference and even likely make the driver behave more responsibly? 

On the other hand.... are we to meekly accept and implicitly condone selfish and unsafe driving by remaining silent? If we don't make a statement, will that mean that same driver won't think twice about doing the same thing or worse again, doing all of us cyclists a disservice? And if we do remonstrate, surely it is entirely unreasonable for a driver to use their automobile in a threatening and/or dangerous manner?

I still am trying to get to grips with both sides of this..... but I would say about 99% of the time I don't remonstrate, don't even raise an eyebrow or a finger. Why? Simply because I'm far from certain that any form of reaction (no matter how reasonable) will be positive, and is more likely to be hugely negative (and I don't want to argue with an automobile thanks). And while I said it would be unreasonable for a driver to use their vehicle in a threatening manner, the problem here is I'm not sure who exactly is reasonable behind the wheel!

OK, the other 1% of the time? I'll freely admit that there have been a handful of occasions where I've just plain reacted based on dangerous driving, a seat-of-your-pants kind of reaction that happened so quickly I barely realized what I'd said after I heard myself. Sometimes -at least for me -you just react.

But certainly short of a cyclist directly threatening and being a very real and imminent threat to a driver's life, there is no way, nor any excuse, good enough to warrant driving into a cyclist deliberately (again, not sure this scenario played out here). Even if they do have the audacity to complain or swear, or even berate.


----------

