Hackney rider pursued, knocked from bike.

[grumpyoldwoman]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.