# "Taxi ran down cyclist on purpose"



## angusde (6 Oct 2008)

All,

See:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7655229.stm

Hopfully, that'll be one less "professional" driver to worry about, and a few more given pause for thought.

Angus


----------



## domtyler (6 Oct 2008)

[PaulB]I didn't see anything wrong here, just another example of the extremely high standard of driving that is evidently present on the roads of the UK. Nothing to see here, move along please.[/PaulB]


----------



## 4F (6 Oct 2008)

angusde said:


> All,
> 
> See:-
> 
> ...



"I braked and he hit the air and tumbled off his bike." 

Umm good defence, what a tosspot


----------



## Jake (6 Oct 2008)

bloody hell


----------



## Bollo (6 Oct 2008)

Sh1t guys, he could be facing a fine of well over £50 here! Show some sympathy!


----------



## Jake (6 Oct 2008)

Travis Bickle


----------



## Bollo (6 Oct 2008)

Just in case anyone's in any doubt, I was being sarcastic, although we have yet to hear the sentence.......


----------



## gdean (6 Oct 2008)

angusde said:


> All,
> 
> See:-
> 
> ...



I wonder if they would be support in the UK to upgrading this type of behaviour, i.e. using a vehicle as a weapon. Is it so far off attempted murder?

Graham


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (6 Oct 2008)

My thoughts entirely – using a vehicle as a weapon, failing to stop after an “accident” – effing little &^%$ - doubt he’ll get more than 6month ban &/or £500 fine

Then again you can drive pissed out of your head, at 110mph, so tired you fall asleep, and kill 2 children, and your out after three and a half years…


----------



## rnscotch (6 Oct 2008)

Shameless behaviour i hope he gets at least a couple of years... I had a run in with a black cab in Glasgow city centre a few weeks back. The cab driver was arrested, he forced me into the barriers at the bottom of bath street. I am still waiting to hear back what is happening.


----------



## col (6 Oct 2008)

I wonder if he did do an obscene gesture?


----------



## ferret fur (6 Oct 2008)

col said:


> I wonder if he did do an obscene gesture?



Does it matter?


----------



## Tharg2007 (6 Oct 2008)

why cant they use these terrorism laws that they abuse all the time against this idiot, using a vehicle as a terrorist weapon should be an offense in its own right after 9/11 and that airport gas cylinder attack. He tried to kill and terrorise the cyclist so he is a terrorist!!!


----------



## John the Monkey (6 Oct 2008)

col said:


> I wonder if he did do an obscene gesture?


For christ's sake Col, does that mean you can drive 3 tons of metal at someone with impunity? 

People who drive are supposed to be grown ups, and not try to kill the people that upset them, it's in the highway code and everything.


----------



## col (6 Oct 2008)

I think it does matter,here is a case that possibly could have happened because of it.I didnt realise you shouldnt kill someone for obscene gestures was in the highway code?


----------



## Jake (6 Oct 2008)

Tharg2007 said:


> why cant they use these terrorism laws that they abuse all the time against this idiot, using a vehicle as a terrorist weapon should be an offense in its own right after 9/11 and that airport gas cylinder attack. He tried to kill and terrorise the cyclist so he is a terrorist!!!



in Israel they get shot, everyone seems to havea gun out there. mind you, he was driving a JCB and not a taxi


----------



## Nigeyy (6 Oct 2008)

I see your point:

if he did make an obscene gesture it could have been (however wrongly) the motivating factor for the assault. Of course whether or not the rider did give an obscene gesture doesn't make the slightest difference about how the psycho taxi-driver should be dealt with -or how it justifies his actions.

But it could make a difference in terms of identifying behaviour from a cyclist's point of view that may aggravate or escalate situations.




col said:


> I think it does matter,here is a case that possibly could have happened because of it.I didnt realise you shouldnt kill someone for obscene gestures was in the highway code?


----------



## magnatom (6 Oct 2008)

col said:


> I think it does matter,here is a case that possibly could have happened because of it.I didnt realise you shouldnt kill someone for obscene gestures was in the highway code?




No. Driving a taxi at someone can not be caused by someone else making any sort of gesture. It can only happen if the driver decides to do it. Stop your trolling col.


----------



## Jake (6 Oct 2008)

didnt it say he was laughing in a mad way as he did this? Can just imagine it.


----------



## Nigeyy (6 Oct 2008)

Logically I'm not so sure.

Taking an example from our school days, you could walk by the biggest baddest person (you know, the sort whose shoulders could block out the sun and even the local police were afraid of) and nothing happens.

Next time you walk by, you declare loudly he smells of bad fish, has the intelligence of a newt and likes dressing up in girl's clothes. You know what is going to happen next.....

In the above, logically nothing has changed between the two scenarios -except you getting badly duffed up after *you* remarked about his odour, dressing preferences and intelligence. The variable that changed was your behaviour.

So I do see that a cyclist's reaction can be a contributory "cause" -though it most certainly does not justify nor excuse in any way an inappropriate reaction.




magnatom said:


> No. Driving a taxi at someone can not be caused by someone else making any sort of gesture. It can only happen if the driver decides to do it. Stop your trolling col.


----------



## John the Monkey (6 Oct 2008)

col said:


> I didnt realise you shouldnt kill someone for obscene gestures was in the highway code?


Rules 144 and 146 would seem to cover it, don't you think?

Again my question/outburst is;

In response to


Col said:


> I wonder if he did do an obscene gesture?


For christ's sake Col, does that mean you can drive 3 tons of metal at someone with impunity?


----------



## col (6 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> No. Driving a taxi at someone can not be caused by someone else making any sort of gesture. It can only happen if the driver decides to do it. Stop your trolling col.



Stop being a numpty mag.I dont dissagree about him being dealt with,but the cyclist might not have had the incident if he hadnt gestured.Its all about self preservation,we all know the taxi is in the wrong,but it prove s that this could be the outcame of winding idiots up.
If you cant see that,then carry on,and report here when you do have something similar happen,thats if your able


----------



## col (6 Oct 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> Rules 144 and 146 would seem to cover it, don't you think?
> 
> Again my question/outburst is;
> 
> ...




Ill give you three guesses


----------



## John the Monkey (6 Oct 2008)

Nigeyy said:


> Next time you walk by, you declare loudly he smells of bad fish, has the intelligence of a newt and likes dressing up in girl's clothes. You know what is going to happen next.....
> 
> In the above, logically nothing has changed between the two scenarios -except you getting badly duffed up after *you* remarked about his odour, dressing preferences and intelligence. The variable that changed was your behaviour.
> 
> So I do see that a cyclist's reaction can be a contributory "cause" -though it most certainly does not justify nor excuse in any way an inappropriate reaction.


Your analogy is flawed. The cab driver endangered the cyclist's life with a stupid overtake, the cyclist reacted to that, and the cab driver then tried to finish the job. 

So to go back to the analogy again, the big fella has to do something along the lines of swinging an axe at you that misses by inches, to which you object, at which point he tries to cut you into tiny bits with the axe. And then says it was all your fault because he left plenty of room to miss you with the first swing.


----------



## John the Monkey (6 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Ill give you three guesses



Why not just answer the sodding question then, instead of being snidey about the highway code, col old boy?


----------



## alp1950 (6 Oct 2008)

Jeez that's my commute route.

Just as well there was a decent minded witness. With his testimony that the driver had a second go I think there is every chance of a driving ban. Doubt that there will be a custodial sentence however. I suspect that the maximum we could expect would be a suspended sentence- unless the driver has previous form. Sadly there is just so much casual violence with knives, bottles etc that the Sheriff Courts only seem to treat assault seriously if there is a fatal outcome or at least a serious injury.

However sentencing has been deferred for a month. I never understand why sentencing is deferred so often. Perhaps in this case it is to give the Sheriff the opportunity to consult with the Crown Office. It could be that the Sheriff recognises that this is more than a routine assault & that there might be wider public issues which could impact on the sentence...

...which does give the opportunity to mobilise some public opinion....letter writing campaign to the Herald & Scotsman anyone? Or even the Scottish Parliament. Or perhaps SPOKES (is there a Glasgow equivalent?) should be pressing for appropriate punishment?


----------



## HLaB (6 Oct 2008)

alp1950 said:


> Or perhaps SPOKES (is there a Glasgow equivalent?) should be pressing for appropriate punsihment?


I think Go Bike is the Glasgow one somebody here will probably be able to confirm.


----------



## Bollo (6 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Stop being a numpty mag.....


Whoa there, you're not exactly practising what you're preaching here. Surely mag's post deserved a weary sigh before clicking away to 'Know How', but you can't ..... seem ..... to.... let...... it ....... lie.


----------



## col (6 Oct 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> Why not just answer the sodding question then, instead of being snidey about the highway code, col old boy?



I cant believe you asked such a stupid question,and i wont rise to your bait. monk old boy
A good point made is where you are walking and someone bumps into you,you dont give them obscene gestures or call them names,why? because it could be unsafe as your face to face with no way to escape if things go bad.The last thing you expect of a driver is to run you down,well it could happen,and this shows its possible if you do certain things in retaliation for mistakes or stupidity.So instead of arguing about me saying it causes more trouble than its worth,why not just not do it?Iv no doubt you will put an argument forward that in some strange way will hint that it is ok to do


----------



## col (6 Oct 2008)

Bollo said:


> Whoa there, you're not exactly practising what you're preaching here. Surely mag's post deserved a weary sigh before clicking away to 'Know How', but you can't ..... seem ..... to.... let...... it ....... lie.



Like iv said before Bolo,ill react the same way they treat me,he is saying im trolling,which im not,although i think they know that,just no one wants to agree that winding a driver up could get you hurt,or none of the usual names will


----------



## Crackle (6 Oct 2008)

*



A Glasgow taxi driver who deliberately ran down a cyclist he thought had made an obscene gesture at him

Click to expand...

*


> Sheriff Andrew Mackie rejected his version of events and convicted Palmer of all three charges



A none argument. No obscene gesture. No wind up, just some f*ckwit in a taxi.


----------



## hackbike 6 (6 Oct 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> For christ's sake Col, does that mean you can drive 3 tons of metal at someone with impunity?
> 
> People who drive are supposed to be grown ups, and not try to kill the people that upset them, it's in the highway code and everything.



.....and back in the real world.


----------



## angusde (7 Oct 2008)

alp1950 said:


> Jeez that's my commute route.
> 
> ....
> 
> However sentencing has been deferred for a month. I never understand why sentencing is deferred so often. ....



My understanding (from my wife, who used to work in the Glasgow Sheriff Court's Social Work office 20 odd years ago) is that the Sheriff will always defer sentencing for background (Social Work et al) reports, it's never done and dusted on the day.

But, hopfully that's one driver you'll never need to watch out for again!

Angus


----------



## Keith Oates (7 Oct 2008)

IMO whether he's fined or sent to prison for a while, a life time driving ban should be included!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## PBancroft (7 Oct 2008)

Keith Oates said:


> IMO whether he's fined or sent to prison for a while, a life time driving ban should be included!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I've said it before, but I'm hoping against hope that one day they'll scrap this points malarkey.

If you do something stupid on the road, no matter what it is (speeding, driving without due care, while intoxicated) you should lose your license and have to retake the test to prove that you can now drive safely again.

The severity of the original crime would dictate how long before you were allowed to retake your test.


----------



## killiekosmos (7 Oct 2008)

He has been found guily of assault (with a taxi!), failing to stop after an accident and failing to report an accident. Are any of these offences punishable by disqualification? Also, should Glasgow City recind his taxi licence immediately?

Why no dangerous driving or attempted murder charges?


----------



## Jake (7 Oct 2008)

angusde said:


> Sheriff will always defer sentencing for background (Social Work et al) reports, it's never done and dusted on the day.




oh great. so he will get off because they will dig up some report to say he was teased as a kid for having a pink bike or something, while coming from a poor family. This made him into this person and on this day he just had a flashback and snapped. It was a one off incident for which he is truly sorry for. Or maybe they will use the footballers get out of jail free. He was bursting for the loo and didnt even see the cyclist, he was just trying to get somewhere without wetting his pants. Or maybe he thought the cyclist was a fare and was pulling over for him lol


----------



## magnatom (7 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Stop being a numpty mag.I dont dissagree about him being dealt with,but the cyclist might not have had the incident if he hadnt gestured.Its all about self preservation,we all know the taxi is in the wrong,but it prove s that this could be the outcame of winding idiots up.
> If you cant see that,then carry on,and report here when you do have something similar happen,thats if your able




I'm certainly not being a numpty here. (Elsewhere maybe, but not here ).

Let me ask you this col, imagine you are driving your car/bus whatever. Imagine some other road user, say a cyclist, takes a dislike to you, for no reason at all. How much provocation would it take for you to swing your vehicle at the cyclist?

I'll answer that for you, assuming you are a law abiding, decent bloke (a stretch, I know...). You would under no circumstances swing your vehicle at the cyclist, because you realise that that would seriously threaten the life of the cyclist, possibly kill them.

So this is why I think provocation in this case is a red herring. Under no circumstances would any decent person swing a vehicle at a cyclist, knowing full well what the consequences would be. This 'driver' swung his taxi at the cyclist because he was a &^&%&^%$&. There is no logic in it.

Remember some people don't need provocation. Have a look at this. This is the extended version of my angry man video which I have posted previously. I challenge anyone to find where I provoked him. All I asked was, after I thought I heard him toot at me, 'what's the problem?'. Some folk don't need provocation.


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (7 Oct 2008)

Jake said:


> oh great. so he will get off because they will dig up some report to say he was teased as a kid for having a pink bike or something, while coming from a poor family. This made him into this person and on this day he just had a flashback and snapped. It was a one off incident for which he is truly sorry for. Or maybe they will use the footballers get out of jail free. He was bursting for the loo and didnt even see the cyclist, he was just trying to get somewhere without wetting his pants. Or maybe he thought the cyclist was a fare and was pulling over for him lol


Wonder if his defence will have the audacity to go for the "but he'll lose his job if you ban him" card ? !

I must admit that a van did a similar overtake on me on the way home last night and I was tempted to "pat" his roof, then thought, "nah best not".


----------



## MartinC (7 Oct 2008)

Col, your post is pretty analogous to the cyclist's alleged obscene gesture.

The cyclist was reacting to something that had threatened his life. Maybe not helpful but understandable and certainly no justification for any illegal action by the driver.

Presumably your post is just a reaction to something you find irritating and made to provoke and irritate others. It's not helpful and I can't understand the need for it.

Whatever - it's pretty irrelevant to the substance of this case which is what the OP presumably wanted to discuss.


----------



## col (7 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> I'm certainly not being a numpty here. (Elsewhere maybe, but not here ).
> 
> Let me ask you this col, imagine you are driving your car/bus whatever. Imagine some other road user, say a cyclist, takes a dislike to you, for no reason at all. How much provocation would it take for you to swing your vehicle at the cyclist?
> 
> ...



Your missing the point mag,as some others seem to be,but i agree with you about everything,well almost But my point is that there are some out there that will run you over for the slightest excuse or reason,and reacting to bad driving or mistakes just might be your lucky day,so why do it?



MartinC said:


> Col, your post is pretty analogous to the cyclist's alleged obscene gesture.
> 
> The cyclist was reacting to something that had threatened his life. Maybe not helpful but understandable and certainly no justification for any illegal action by the driver.
> 
> ...



The reaction to threatened life seems to be the excuse most use to swear at drivers,if they make a mistake too,but when a driver reacts back to it,the cyclist is pleading wot did i do?
I agree its not justification for the driver,but telling the driver to eff off or other is eventually going to get this response as we all seem to know happens sometimes,so why do it?Thats my point.
And before the usual ones try to say im on the drivers side,im not,he should be locked up and banned for life,so the cyclist can do it again to someone else who cant control their tempers,and hopefully he will survive that too.


----------



## Origamist (7 Oct 2008)

col said:


> And before the usual ones try to say im on the drivers side,im not,he should be locked up and banned for life,*so the cyclist can do it again* to someone else who cant control their tempers,and hopefully he will survive that too.



Do what again? The taxi driver's version of events were rejected by the Sheriff. Accusing the cyclist of giving him the finger was most likley a bit of back engineering by the cabbie in order to mitigate his cowardly and dangerous act.


----------



## col (7 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> Do what again? The taxi driver's version of events were rejected by the Sheriff. Accusing the cyclist of giving him the finger was most likley a bit of back engineering by the cabbie in order to mitigate his cowardly and dangerous act.




It could also have been the cyclist back engineering,realising what he had caused,and being cowardly didnt want to admit it.?


----------



## Origamist (7 Oct 2008)

col said:


> It could also have been the cyclist back engineering,realising what he had caused,and being cowardly didnt want to admit it.?



Did you read Mr Taylor's account, he was a motorist who witnessed the incident? It tallies with the cyclist's version of events. However, I guess they were in cahoots eh, Col!


----------



## magnatom (7 Oct 2008)

col said:


> It could also have been the cyclist back engineering,realising what he had caused,and being cowardly didnt want to admit it.?




Come on col, you are really stretching things now. The court has found in favour of the cyclist, the witnesses version of events tallies with the cyclists, so to the best of our and everyone else's knowledge the cyclist did not give any aggressive signs. You are just spinning this for your own purposes.


----------



## col (7 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> Did you read Mr Taylor's account, he was a motorist who witnessed the incident? It tallies with the cyclist's version of events. However, I guess they were in cahoots eh, Col!



Do you think so? I dont believe the witness saw things until they started unfolding after the possible hand signal of the cyclist?


----------



## Graham O (7 Oct 2008)

Col,
I'm not one to get involved in arguements on here, but didn't you go through all this a few weeks ago? It is getting very tiring. Can't you just accept that you have a point of view and that others have a different one? How about everytime someone talks about "two fingering" or shouting at a driver, you make one comment and then shut up? You've made you point many times and now you just go on and on about it. We know your point of view and whether it is right or wrong, we don't accept it.


----------



## col (7 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> Come on col, you are really stretching things now. The court has found in favour of the cyclist, the witnesses version of events tallies with the cyclists, so to the best of our and everyone else's knowledge the cyclist did not give any aggressive signs. You are just spinning this for your own purposes.




Its good that the court has found in his favour,but then im not saying the taxi is innocent am i,and being a decent sort(hard to believe i know) you might see the possibility of a cyclist inflaming things,golly its just a possibility.


----------



## col (7 Oct 2008)

Graham O said:


> Col,
> I'm not one to get involved in arguements on here, but didn't you go through all this a few weeks ago? It is getting very tiring. Can't you just accept that you have a point of view and that others have a different one? How about everytime someone talks about "two fingering" or shouting at a driver, you make one comment and then shut up? You've made you point many times and now you just go on and on about it. We know your point of view and whether it is right or wrong, we don't accept it.



Thats becoming obvious,but im not the one going on,im replying to a post from others,so why dont they just shut up?Or is replying not allowed when you dissagree with the subject?
And your right,it is getting tiring.


----------



## BentMikey (7 Oct 2008)

This is why Col is on my ignore list, LOL!


----------



## Origamist (7 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Do you think so? I dont believe the witness saw things until they started unfolding after the possible hand signal of the cyclist?



You're by the far the funniest person on this forum. Long may you continue to post. 

Word of warning, Col. I'd never thank a driver with a friendly wave, in case they think you are making a wan*er gesture and try to run you down. It can happen, as you've pointed out in this thread. Who would believe your version of events though?


----------



## magnatom (7 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Its good that the court has found in his favour,but then im not saying the taxi is innocent am i,and being a decent sort(hard to believe i know) you might see the possibility of a cyclist inflaming things,golly its just a possibility.




Look Col. The facts of this case are clear. If you want to start, yet another thread, about inflaming the situation etc then feel free, but this thread is about this case. In this case the evidence suggests that the cyclist was an innocent victim. Unless you have evidence otherwise then it is best not to say anything at all. 

For the record, no, I do not really think giving two fingers would have inflamed this situation. Contact had already been made. Anyway, as a taxi driver living and working in Glasgow, (generally a great city to live in, but it has bad areas) he will have faced abuse nearly every day of his working life, much of it far worse that two fingers, so no, in this case I think, even if the cyclist had given two fingers, it would not have made any difference.

Any questions?!


----------



## Graham O (7 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Thats becoming obvious,but im not the one going on,im replying to a post from others,so why dont they just shut up?Or is replying not allowed when you dissagree with the subject?
> And your right,it is getting tiring.



That sounds very much like you are responding to someone else's actions. So what is the difference between that and remonstrating with a driver after his/her poor driving? 

If someone from here came round to your house and thumped you, would you apologise for forcing him into that course of action?


----------



## Jake (7 Oct 2008)

CycleChat
A friendly place for everyone with an interest in cycling.


----------



## Graham O (7 Oct 2008)

Jake said:


> CycleChat
> A friendly place for everyone with an interest in cycling.



Whatever gave you that idea?


----------



## col (7 Oct 2008)

Graham O said:


> That sounds very much like you are responding to someone else's actions. So what is the difference between that and remonstrating with a driver after his/her poor driving?
> 
> If someone from here came round to your house and thumped you, would you apologise for forcing him into that course of action?




Oh dear another one,No,but i dont think that person would like the result of their actions.Again a totally out of context example
Its obvious to me and probably others that Can see my point,that the usual gang refuses to,so hey ho,in trying to point out possible dangers,i get called names,well from some what else did i expect


----------



## Graham O (7 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Oh dear another one,No,but i dont think that person would like the result of their actions.Again a totally out of context example
> Its obvious to me and probably others that Can see my point,that the usual gang refuses to,so hey ho,in trying to point out possible dangers,i get called names,well from some what else did i expect



Have you noticed Col, that when you get wound up, your grammar goes downhill?


----------



## col (7 Oct 2008)

Graham O said:


> Whatever gave you that idea?




Very true


----------



## col (7 Oct 2008)

Graham O said:


> Have you noticed Col, that when you get wound up, your grammar goes downhill?




Another ottempt to incightHave yu notissed people try tu upset when they get angree


----------



## nilling (7 Oct 2008)

Unbelievable version of events from the taxi driver...if there was ever a case of somebody using a motor vehicle as a weapon it's this one but I'll not hold my breath for the sentencing though


----------



## magnatom (7 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Its obvious to me and probably others that Can see my point,that the usual gang refuses to,so hey ho,in trying to point out possible dangers,i get called names,well from some what else did i expect




Oh aye col. We're all one big gang, ganging up on you etc....

I take it, you had no questions then. 

P.S. what names have you been called in this thread?


----------



## Origamist (7 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Oh dear another one,No,but i dont think that person would like the result of their actions.Again a totally out of context example
> Its obvious to me and probably others that Can see my point,that the usual gang refuses to,so hey ho,in trying to point out possible dangers,i get called names,well from some what else did i expect



I agree with you about incitement, Col, but you've picked the wrong case/thread to bang on about the subject. The cyclist said he did not make an inflammatory gesture and the sheriff believed him - no other witnesses corroborated the cabbie's version of events. It's a shame that you side with the taxi driver's take on events, simply to repeat the same hackneyed mantra about provocation.


----------



## arranandy (7 Oct 2008)

I know the cyclist involved as he is a member of the same club as me. He was very lucky to escape with just cuts and bruises. IMO the taxi driver should get the book thrown at him but it is more likely to be a fine, a driving ban and maybe a suspended sentence. The driving ban will cost him his taxi licence and his livelihood but he deserves it.


----------



## magnatom (7 Oct 2008)

arranandy said:


> I know the cyclist involved as he is a member of the same club as me. He was very lucky to escape with just cuts and bruises. IMO the taxi driver should get the book thrown at him but it is more likely to be a fine, a driving ban and maybe a suspended sentence. The driving ban will cost him his taxi licence and his livelihood but he deserves it.




Maybe you should point him to this thread and he could share his own experience of the incident. Of course, he might just want to forget about it and move on.


----------



## Crackle (7 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> Maybe you should point him to this thread and he could share his own experience of the incident. Of course, he might just want to forget about it and move on.



 I think he might be a bit riled at the suggestion he caused it to happen.


----------



## magnatom (7 Oct 2008)

Crackle said:


> I think he might be a bit riled at the suggestion he caused it to happen.



Aye the cyclist and col might not hit it off in the beginning.....


----------



## jmaccyd (7 Oct 2008)

arranandy said:


> I know the cyclist involved as he is a member of the same club as me. He was very lucky to escape with just cuts and bruises. IMO the taxi driver should get the book thrown at him but it is more likely to be a fine, a driving ban and maybe a suspended sentence. The driving ban will cost him his taxi licence and his livelihood but he deserves it.



As a Taxi Driver myself I find some of the arguments a little strange. IF it had entered my head to run over every road user who engaged in er...energetic hand signalling (if that occured) I would after fifteen years of driving have a road death toll that would put Poll Pot to shame. It is simply anti-social driving of the worst sort. He will get a ban, be fined and loose his livelyhood, that is substantial enougth punishment in my book.


----------



## col (7 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> Oh aye col. We're all one big gang, ganging up on you etc....
> 
> I take it, you had no questions then.
> 
> P.S. what names have you been called in this thread?




you said that not me,i said something different,but its twisted again,the question was if he did make a gesture,or did you miss that?
well your memory is short,try troll for your input?


----------



## col (7 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> Aye the cyclist and col might not hit it off in the beginning.....




Oh dear here we go again,read the thread properly and you would see its a question,and then we go on about possibilities,but you obviously see it different


----------



## col (7 Oct 2008)

jmaccyd said:


> As a Taxi Driver myself I find some of the arguments a little strange. IF it had entered my head to run over every road user who engaged in er...energetic hand signalling (if that occured) I would after fifteen years of driving have a road death toll that would put Poll Pot to shame. It is simply anti-social driving of the worst sort. He will get a ban, be fined and loose his livelyhood, that is substantial enougth punishment in my book.



Not strange if you understand what im saying,that is there is always some idiot who might do this sort of thing,not eveyone its done too.


----------



## col (7 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yes see your point, but the court saw favour to the cyclist. Irrespective of gesture or not it's no excuse to drive a taxi at someone? Put it to bed.



I will when they stop asking something And i agree the taxi driver should be done for it.
Your right lee,its now going beddy bye bo bo's for me.


----------



## Crackle (7 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Oh dear here we go again,read the thread properly and you would see its a question,and then we go on about possibilities,but you obviously see it different


Right. By the same token read the report properly and then you wouldn't have asked the question.


----------



## hackbike 6 (7 Oct 2008)

I've come across motorists who just lose it in their little cages.

Spur of the moment thingy and I've seen the odd punch up.


----------



## hackbike 6 (7 Oct 2008)

That's terribly sad.



User3143 said:


> I think gesture or not the mentality of the cabbie says it all. I'm just glad he was caught now because next time (there would have been) he could of killed someone.



Unfair on cabbies,you can't tar them all with the same brush,that isn't fair.


----------



## hackbike 6 (7 Oct 2008)

Ok apologies.


----------



## magnatom (8 Oct 2008)

col said:


> you said that not me,i said something different,but its twisted again,*the question was if he did make a gesture*,or did you miss that?
> well your memory is short,try troll for your input?




Col,

If you go back and actually read my previous post (post 53) you will see that I have very clearly answered your question. Feel free to comment on my reply.


----------



## Twenty Inch (8 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> This is why Col is on my ignore list, LOL!




And has been on mine for a long time. He's a recidivist cager apologist and a waste of bandwidth.

Note to self - log in before reading threads in future, as otherwise the ignore list doesn't work.


----------



## col (8 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> This is why Col is on my ignore list, LOL!





Twenty Inch said:


> And has been on mine for a long time. He's a recidivist cager apologist and a waste of bandwidth.
> 
> Note to self - log in before reading threads in future, as otherwise the ignore list doesn't work.




It strikes me as some get annoyed when i point out that if,take notes now if someone gesticulates it could,notes again boys could make things worse?And some always have to have a derogatory remark,incredible
Some one quote me or these two wont see my reply,or will they sneak a peek anyway?


----------



## col (8 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> Col,
> 
> If you go back and actually read my previous post (post 53) you will see that I have very clearly answered your question. Feel free to comment on my reply.




So you dont think that this driver,who tried to knock him down because he HAD NOT gesticulated,would not have reacted if the cyclist had?How do you come to that conclusion?


----------



## magnatom (8 Oct 2008)

col said:


> So you dont think that this driver,who tried to knock him down because he HAD NOT gesticulated,would not have reacted if the cyclist had?How do you come to that conclusion?



 Col, are you trying to blind me with nonsense?

Let me repost this as it is quite clear



> For the record, no, I do not really think giving two fingers would have inflamed this situation. Contact had already been made. Anyway, as a taxi driver living and working in Glasgow, (generally a great city to live in, but it has bad areas) he will have faced abuse nearly every day of his working life, much of it far worse that two fingers, so no, in this case I think, even if the cyclist had given two fingers, it would not have made any difference.



From what you have written, the only thing I can decipher is that you are now coming up with a purely hypothetical situation where the taxi has not already hit the cyclist, which it has, that the cyclist has given him two fingers, which he did not. 

The facts are very clear to everyone except you. If you have a question please ask it clearly and I am more than happy to answer it. At the moment you are writing in riddles or gibberish (nothing personal of course!).


----------



## col (8 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> Col, are you trying to blind me with nonsense?
> 
> Let me repost this as it is quite clear
> 
> ...



Of course not But just the answer i expected


----------



## magnatom (8 Oct 2008)

col said:


> Of course not But just the answer i expected




More riddles


----------



## 4F (8 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> More riddles



If I were you I would give up this futile exchange whilst you still have your sanity


----------



## magnatom (8 Oct 2008)

FatFellaFromFelixstowe said:


> If I were you I would give up this futile exchange whilst you still have your sanity




Aye, it is getting stranger and stranger. Have I entered the x-files....


----------



## Crackle (8 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> Aye, it is getting stranger and stranger. Have I entered the x-files....



More like Alice in Wonderland. Anyway FFFF has bestowed sanity on you  Personally I think that's going a bit far.


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> More riddles


You should argue with this fella;


View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4mCbIz10PK8


----------



## magnatom (8 Oct 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> You should argue with this fella;
> 
> 
> View: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4mCbIz10PK8





Obviously I know too much......


----------



## BentMikey (8 Oct 2008)

It'd be great if people could stop feeding/quoting the troll...


----------



## magnatom (8 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> It'd be great if people could stop feeding/quoting the troll...




Yes daddy! Can I watch cbeebies now?


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> Yes daddy! Can I watch cbeebies now?


"well maybe ye can, and maybe ye can't..."

/plays flute


----------



## magnatom (8 Oct 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> "well maybe ye can, and maybe ye can't..."
> 
> /plays flute




'Well if you don't know, and I don't know, and I don't know and you don't know, do *you* know?'


----------



## Mr Phoebus (8 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> Aye, it is getting stranger and stranger. Have I entered the x-files....



Yep!!!!


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (8 Oct 2008)

magnatom said:


> 'Well if you don't know, and I don't know, and I don't know and you don't know, do *you* know?'


Red, yellow, green or blue, which is right it's up to you


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Oct 2008)

Mr Phoebus said:


> Yep!!!!



There you go, clear case of provocation.


----------



## jmaccyd (8 Oct 2008)

BentMikey said:


> It'd be great if people could stop feeding/quoting the troll...




Excuse my ignorance. , what is a troll? (I assume other than a mythical vertically challenged person)


----------



## Origamist (8 Oct 2008)

jmaccyd said:


> Excuse my ignorance. , what is a troll? (I assume other than a mythical vertically challenged person)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)


----------



## jmaccyd (8 Oct 2008)

Origamist said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)




Ah! Thank you - good old Wikipedia


----------



## col (8 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Col, give it up it's obvious that the mentality of the cabbie is questionable, two fingers, w@nker wave, whatever. This is no excuse to drive into a cyclist.



Iv never said it was lee.


----------



## col (8 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Then what exactly is your point?




I asked if he had gesticulated,as it could have been a contributing factor in the outcome,?


----------



## standard-issue (9 Oct 2008)

This has been a most enthusing thread to read.

Never before have i seen somebody argue so profusely, to the point where it seems they lost sight of their own arguement.

col, in this case it appears your a "troll" and a "hijacker", you maybe have a point, if you weren't so far off subject.

As suggested way earlier in the thread, if you wanted this arguement and your point to be accepted you should have started your own thread.


----------



## col (9 Oct 2008)

standard-issue said:


> This has been a most enthusing thread to read.
> 
> Never before have i seen somebody argue so profusely, to the point where it seems they lost sight of their own arguement.
> 
> ...



Good point,i probably get carried away with the remarks from others who seem unable or willing to see that this can make things worse,but i suppose iv brought the idea to some peoples attention,and is food for thought.Iv not realised how focused i was on this point,until now,and your post,which seems without sarcasm or malice has shown that to me,cheers standard issue


----------



## MartinC (9 Oct 2008)

Col, let's apply your argument to the recent trial where the guy was found guilty of murdering the boxer in London. Your view is that the boxer provoked the shooting by asking the murderer and his mates not to smoke?


----------



## Andy 71 (9 Oct 2008)

No matter who said what to whom, mounting a pavement with your car with the intent of running someone down is akin to ATTEMPTED MURDER. What about the safety of all the other pedestrians.


----------



## col (9 Oct 2008)

MartinC said:


> Col, let's apply your argument to the recent trial where the guy was found guilty of murdering the boxer in London. Your view is that the boxer provoked the shooting by asking the murderer and his mates not to smoke?



Of course not



User3143 said:


> Yes...o.k col I understand what you are saying and if he would have gesticulated then maybe this would have a contributing factor to the outcome.
> 
> However this is clearly no excuse to drive a taxi at someone, look at the post by the other cabbie and see what they say.



As i agree too



Andy 71 said:


> No matter who said what to whom, mounting a pavement with your car with the intent of running someone down is akin to ATTEMPTED MURDER. What about the safety of all the other pedestrians.



As i agree also


----------



## col (9 Oct 2008)

User3143 said:


> Yes...o.k col I understand what you are saying and if he would have gesticulated then maybe this would have a contributing factor to the outcome.
> 
> However this is clearly no excuse to drive a taxi at someone, look at the post by the other cabbie and see what they say.




Lee i wonder why you sent that im a troll and something is wrong with my rational thought,and then dont show it on the post you make here,thats trolling


----------



## magnatom (4 Nov 2008)

Heres an outcome for the taxi driver court case

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.2465500.0.0.php


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Nov 2008)

Four months jail, 18 months disqualification. For INTENTIONALLY driving a car at someone else.



> Defence lawyer Graham Walker said Palmer had since lost his taxi licence and the effects of the case coming to court had been "catastrophic" for his client.



What is wrong with these bloody people? In what bizarre parallell universe does someone expect to drive a car at another person and NOT lose their taxi license and get taken to court?


----------



## Jake (4 Nov 2008)

Good conclusion 

"Defence lawyer Graham Walker said Palmer had since lost his taxi licence and the effects of the case coming to court had been "catastrophic" for his client."

and so what if he had given him the finger, does that warrent running someone over? Nice resuly and good to hear.


----------



## Mr Phoebus (4 Nov 2008)

> He said: "I put the window down to shout at him to stop, but he just kept on going. He went to take another swipe at the taxi and I braked and *he hit thin air and tumbled off his bike*."





Stupid lying Bastard, albeit, a funny fick one.


----------



## Lazy-Commuter (4 Nov 2008)

> Defence lawyer Graham Walker said Palmer had since lost his taxi licence and the effects of the case coming to court had been "catastrophic" for his client.


I'd love to see that defence applied in a murder trial .. "yeah, I did do it and all that but please be kind to me, I've lost me job and it's been a disaster having to come to court and everyfink".


----------



## jmaccyd (4 Nov 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> Four months jail, 18 months disqualification. For INTENTIONALLY driving a car at someone else.
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with these bloody people? In what bizarre parallell universe does someone expect to drive a car at another person and NOT lose their taxi license and get taken to court?




I don't think any of us should under estimate four months of jail time. He has lost his license, will not drive a Taxi again, and will spend four months inside which at his age will be no tea party (er...strip search anyone!) A longer driving ban would have been appropriate but in the current sentancing climate, that would seem a fair result.


----------



## swee'pea99 (4 Nov 2008)

John the Monkey said:


> Four months jail, 18 months disqualification. For INTENTIONALLY driving a car at someone else.
> 
> What is wrong with these bloody people? In what bizarre parallell universe does someone expect to drive a car at another person and NOT lose their taxi license and get taken to court?


To be fair, I don't think anything he said amounted to 'my client should not have been taken to court, or lose his license'. Sounds to me like just yer standard plea for mitigation/mercy, which is after all part of the defense brief's job. 

Seems like a pretty fair result to me. I doubt he'll much enjoy his time inside, he won't have a sitting-down job to come out to, and any driver who notices the news will surely - even the thick ones - get the message: that you can't drive your vehicle at cyclists with impunity.


----------



## Jake (4 Nov 2008)

attmtped murder really? well, in he tried to hit him off his bike which may or may not have killed the cyclist. Although it being scotland, the driver may have collapsed and died - (see other thread)


----------



## LLB (4 Nov 2008)

magnatom said:


> Heres an outcome for the taxi driver court case
> 
> http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/display.var.2465500.0.0.php



Result


----------



## John the Monkey (4 Nov 2008)

[quote name='swee'pea99']To be fair, I don't think anything he said amounted to 'my client should not have been taken to court, or lose his license'. Sounds to me like just yer standard plea for mitigation/mercy, which is after all part of the defense brief's job.[/quote]

I think it's symptomatic of a society that is more forgiving of behaviour at the wheel than it is of similar behaviours elsewhere, swee'pea.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (4 Nov 2008)

4 months hardly sends out a very strong message - and only disqualified from driving for 18 months? Ludicrous. It's almost as pointlessly offensive to cyclists as the 'opinions' of a certain poster on this thread, who has now become the second person on my ignore list.


----------



## Riding in Circles (4 Nov 2008)

LLB said:


> Result



A bad one, he got four months when he should have got 5 years.


----------



## jmaccyd (4 Nov 2008)

Catrike UK said:


> A bad one, he got four months when he should have got 5 years.




Really? When people who kill behind the wheel, even when drunk or unlicensed, don't get that sentance. When we have a prison system letting out REALLY nasty career criminals who are a threat to us all? This man deserves his taste of life inside, and should have got a much longer ban from behind the wheel, but lets save hang-drawing-and-quatering for those who really do deserve it. Four months inside for a generally law abiding guy of that age is going to be a rude awakening for him.


----------



## swee'pea99 (4 Nov 2008)

+1.

Also, let's not forget it's not just about punishment - there's also the question of deterrence. And I suspect that the mere _fact_ of imprisonment, regardless of the time, would help focus the minds of all drivers on the inadvisability of using your vehicle to bully cyclists.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (4 Nov 2008)

swee said:


> fact[/I] of imprisonment, regardless of the time, would help focus the minds of all drivers on the inadvisability of using your vehicle to bully cyclists.



Trying to run someone over is more than bullying. In my mind, it is the driving ban that is of more importance than the prison sentence anyway. 18 months is really very little for this. If you want to deter this kind of potentially fatal misuse of a vehicle, then a lifetime ban would be a more serious one. Who knows, the guy might even be forced onto a bike, now wouldn't that be justice?


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (4 Nov 2008)

Quote: "Defence lawyer Graham Walker said Palmer had since lost his taxi licence and the effects of the case coming to court had been "catastrophic" for his client."

good


----------

