Another headbutting cyclist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ALHl-dCl_U
Skip to 5:00

Most cyclists would have stopped and offered to pay for the damage.
Any decent law abiding motorist would say he only needed to pay the windsceen excess and the insurance would take care of it.
Any decent human being would be more concerned with the cyclist's well being.

On 23/09/2019 14:47, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ALHl-dCl_U
Skip to 5:00

Most cyclists would have stopped and offered to pay for the damage.
Any decent law abiding motorist would say he only needed to pay the windsceen excess and the insurance would take care of it.
Any decent human being would be more concerned with the cyclist's well being.

SUMMARY:

A negligent and reckless cyclist causes damage to someone else's
property (that other person behaving entirely reasonably and lawfully)
and then scarpers as fast as he can without even speaking to the victim,
hampered only by the fact that he has damaged his bicycle and cannot
ride it. Instead, he wheels it away (on foot) as fast as he can,
apparently to the incredulity of the victim.

We don't see what happens next.

My estimate is that there is in excess of £1,000 worth of damage done to
the victim's property.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:02:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 14:47, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ALHl-dCl_U
Skip to 5:00

Most cyclists would have stopped and offered to pay for the damage.
Any decent law abiding motorist would say he only needed to pay the windsceen excess and the insurance would take care of it.
Any decent human being would be more concerned with the cyclist's well being.

SUMMARY:

A negligent and reckless cyclist causes damage to someone else's
property (that other person behaving entirely reasonably and lawfully)
and then scarpers as fast as he can without even speaking to the victim,
hampered only by the fact that he has damaged his bicycle and cannot
ride it. Instead, he wheels it away (on foot) as fast as he can,
apparently to the incredulity of the victim.


That about sums it up.
As I said most cyclists would take responsibility for their actions, glad you agree.

We don't see what happens next.

My estimate is that there is in excess of £1,000 worth of damage done to
the victim's property.


Typical motorist response, more concerned with material objects than people..

On 23/09/2019 15:41, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:02:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 14:47, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ALHl-dCl_U
Skip to 5:00

Most cyclists would have stopped and offered to pay for the damage.
Any decent law abiding motorist would say he only needed to pay the windsceen excess and the insurance would take care of it.
Any decent human being would be more concerned with the cyclist's well being.

SUMMARY:

A negligent and reckless cyclist causes damage to someone else's
property (that other person behaving entirely reasonably and lawfully)
and then scarpers as fast as he can without even speaking to the victim,
hampered only by the fact that he has damaged his bicycle and cannot
ride it. Instead, he wheels it away (on foot) as fast as he can,
apparently to the incredulity of the victim.


That about sums it up.
As I said most cyclists would take responsibility for their actions, glad you agree.

I am happy to do so, save for the fact that we might disagree on the
word "most". Amend it to the more neutral "some" and I can agree in full.

We don't see what happens next.

My estimate is that there is in excess of £1,000 worth of damage done to
the victim's property.

Typical motorist response, more concerned with material objects than people.

The criminal walked away from the scene of the crime, first wheeling,
then later carrying, his bicycle.

He seemed fit enough to put a fair distance between himself and the
victim despite that burden.

Of course, the prospect of being liable to pay for the damage he has
caused is what has triggered his flight.

But...

QUOTE:
Criminal Damage Act 1971:

[Section] 1. Destroying or damaging property.

(1) A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property
belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property
*or* being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed
or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
ENDQUOTE

The cyclist in that video displays a textbook example of recklessness.
Intent is not required by the legislation. It would be a sufficient
characteristic of the crime, but it isn't a necessary one. Recklessness
is quite enough on its own.

Same Act:

QUOTE:
[Section] 4 Punishment of offences.
(1) A person guilty of arson under section 1 above or of an offence
under section 1(2) above (whether arson or not) shall on conviction on
indictment be liable to imprisonment for life.

(2) A person guilty of any other offence under this Act shall on
conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding ten years.
ENDQUOTE


--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:14:16 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 15:41, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:02:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 14:47, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ALHl-dCl_U
Skip to 5:00

Most cyclists would have stopped and offered to pay for the damage.
Any decent law abiding motorist would say he only needed to pay the windsceen excess and the insurance would take care of it.
Any decent human being would be more concerned with the cyclist's well being.

SUMMARY:

A negligent and reckless cyclist causes damage to someone else's
property (that other person behaving entirely reasonably and lawfully)
and then scarpers as fast as he can without even speaking to the victim,
hampered only by the fact that he has damaged his bicycle and cannot
ride it. Instead, he wheels it away (on foot) as fast as he can,
apparently to the incredulity of the victim.


That about sums it up.
As I said most cyclists would take responsibility for their actions, glad you agree.

I am happy to do so, save for the fact that we might disagree on the
word "most". Amend it to the more neutral "some" and I can agree in full.

How about ' the vast majority', unless you can prove otherwise.
We have presumption of innocence in this country.


We don't see what happens next.

My estimate is that there is in excess of £1,000 worth of damage done to
the victim's property.

Typical motorist response, more concerned with material objects than people.

The criminal walked away from the scene of the crime, first wheeling,
then later carrying, his bicycle.

He seemed fit enough to put a fair distance between himself and the
victim despite that burden.


Injuries may manifest themselves later.

Of course, the prospect of being liable to pay for the damage he has
caused is what has triggered his flight.


Do you have evidence to support this claim?

But...

QUOTE:
Criminal Damage Act 1971:


Yawn.

On 23/09/2019 16:49, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:14:16 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 15:41, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:02:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 14:47, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ALHl-dCl_U
Skip to 5:00

Most cyclists would have stopped and offered to pay for the damage.
Any decent law abiding motorist would say he only needed to pay the windsceen excess and the insurance would take care of it.
Any decent human being would be more concerned with the cyclist's well being.

SUMMARY:
A negligent and reckless cyclist causes damage to someone else's
property (that other person behaving entirely reasonably and lawfully)
and then scarpers as fast as he can without even speaking to the victim,
hampered only by the fact that he has damaged his bicycle and cannot
ride it. Instead, he wheels it away (on foot) as fast as he can,
apparently to the incredulity of the victim.

That about sums it up.

That's what ""Summary" means.

As I said most cyclists would take responsibility for their actions, glad you agree.

I am happy to do so, save for the fact that we might disagree on the
word "most". Amend it to the more neutral "some" and I can agree in full.

How about ' the vast majority', unless you can prove otherwise.
We have presumption of innocence in this country.

"Some" is as far as I can reasonably go. And as far as you can
reasonably expect me to go.

We don't see what happens next.

My estimate is that there is in excess of £1,000 worth of damage done to
the victim's property.

Typical motorist response, more concerned with material objects than people.

The criminal walked away from the scene of the crime, first wheeling,
then later carrying, his bicycle.

He seemed fit enough to put a fair distance between himself and the
victim despite that burden.

Injuries may manifest themselves later.

"May".

Or may not.

Of course, the prospect of being liable to pay for the damage he has
caused is what has triggered his flight.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

But...

QUOTE:
Criminal Damage Act 1971:

Yawn.

Yes, we already know that most[*] cyclists are not inclined to assume
responsibility for their actions. Particularly not financial responsibility.

[* I have no difficulty with "most" there. I expect you'd rather it were
rendered as "some".]

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:58:24 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 16:49, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:14:16 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 15:41, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:02:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 14:47, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ALHl-dCl_U
Skip to 5:00

Most cyclists would have stopped and offered to pay for the damage.
Any decent law abiding motorist would say he only needed to pay the windsceen excess and the insurance would take care of it.
Any decent human being would be more concerned with the cyclist's well being.

SUMMARY:
A negligent and reckless cyclist causes damage to someone else's
property (that other person behaving entirely reasonably and lawfully)
and then scarpers as fast as he can without even speaking to the victim,
hampered only by the fact that he has damaged his bicycle and cannot
ride it. Instead, he wheels it away (on foot) as fast as he can,
apparently to the incredulity of the victim.

That about sums it up.

That's what ""Summary" means.

As I said most cyclists would take responsibility for their actions, glad you agree.

I am happy to do so, save for the fact that we might disagree on the
word "most". Amend it to the more neutral "some" and I can agree in full.

How about ' the vast majority', unless you can prove otherwise.
We have presumption of innocence in this country.

"Some" is as far as I can reasonably go. And as far as you can
reasonably expect me to go.

Agreed, when it comes to cyclists you are not interested in facts, only bigotry.


We don't see what happens next.

My estimate is that there is in excess of £1,000 worth of damage done to
the victim's property.

Typical motorist response, more concerned with material objects than people.

The criminal walked away from the scene of the crime, first wheeling,
then later carrying, his bicycle.

He seemed fit enough to put a fair distance between himself and the
victim despite that burden.

Injuries may manifest themselves later.

"May".

Or may not.

Of course, the prospect of being liable to pay for the damage he has
caused is what has triggered his flight.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

But...

QUOTE:
Criminal Damage Act 1971:

Yawn.

Yes, we already know that most[*] cyclists are not inclined to assume
responsibility for their actions. Particularly not financial responsibility.

[* I have no difficulty with "most" there. I expect you'd rather it were
rendered as "some".]


You have neglected to provide evidence to support this claim.

On 23/09/2019 17:09, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:58:24 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 16:49, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:14:16 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 15:41, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:02:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 14:47, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ALHl-dCl_U
Skip to 5:00

Most cyclists would have stopped and offered to pay for the damage.
Any decent law abiding motorist would say he only needed to pay the windsceen excess and the insurance would take care of it.
Any decent human being would be more concerned with the cyclist's well being.

SUMMARY:
A negligent and reckless cyclist causes damage to someone else's
property (that other person behaving entirely reasonably and lawfully)
and then scarpers as fast as he can without even speaking to the victim,
hampered only by the fact that he has damaged his bicycle and cannot
ride it. Instead, he wheels it away (on foot) as fast as he can,
apparently to the incredulity of the victim.

That about sums it up.

That's what ""Summary" means.

As I said most cyclists would take responsibility for their actions, glad you agree.

I am happy to do so, save for the fact that we might disagree on the
word "most". Amend it to the more neutral "some" and I can agree in full.

How about ' the vast majority', unless you can prove otherwise.
We have presumption of innocence in this country.

"Some" is as far as I can reasonably go. And as far as you can
reasonably expect me to go.

Agreed, when it comes to cyclists you are not interested in facts, only bigotry.

You have no facts. certainly none to support your claim that most
cyclists would behave properly.

But you have plenty of bigotry undderpinning your general position(s).
That's not a statement of the absolute. it's a statement of tendency.

We don't see what happens next.

My estimate is that there is in excess of £1,000 worth of damage done to
the victim's property.

Typical motorist response, more concerned with material objects than people.

The criminal walked away from the scene of the crime, first wheeling,
then later carrying, his bicycle.

He seemed fit enough to put a fair distance between himself and the
victim despite that burden.

Injuries may manifest themselves later.

"May".

Or may not.

Of course, the prospect of being liable to pay for the damage he has
caused is what has triggered his flight.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

But...

QUOTE:
Criminal Damage Act 1971:

Yawn.

Yes, we already know that most[*] cyclists are not inclined to assume
responsibility for their actions. Particularly not financial responsibility.

[* I have no difficulty with "most" there. I expect you'd rather it were
rendered as "some".]

You have neglected to provide evidence to support this claim.

OK, I take that back.

You wouldn't rather it were rendered as "most" and are therefore
presumably happy with "most".

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:58:24 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 16:49, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:14:16 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 15:41, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:02:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 14:47, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ALHl-dCl_U
Skip to 5:00

Most cyclists would have stopped and offered to pay for the
damage.
Any decent law abiding motorist would say he only needed to pay
the windsceen excess and the insurance would take care of it.
Any decent human being would be more concerned with the
cyclist's well being.

SUMMARY:
A negligent and reckless cyclist causes damage to someone else's
property (that other person behaving entirely reasonably and
lawfully) and then scarpers as fast as he can without even
speaking to the victim, hampered only by the fact that he has
damaged his bicycle and cannot ride it. Instead, he wheels it
away (on foot) as fast as he can, apparently to the incredulity
of the victim.

That about sums it up.

That's what ""Summary" means.

As I said most cyclists would take responsibility for their
actions, glad you agree.

I am happy to do so, save for the fact that we might disagree on
the word "most". Amend it to the more neutral "some" and I can
agree in full.

How about ' the vast majority', unless you can prove otherwise.
We have presumption of innocence in this country.

"Some" is as far as I can reasonably go. And as far as you can
reasonably expect me to go.

Agreed, when it comes to cyclists you are not interested in facts,
only bigotry.


We don't see what happens next.

My estimate is that there is in excess of £1,000 worth of damage
done to the victim's property.

Typical motorist response, more concerned with material objects
than people.

The criminal walked away from the scene of the crime, first
wheeling, then later carrying, his bicycle.

He seemed fit enough to put a fair distance between himself and the
victim despite that burden.

Injuries may manifest themselves later.

"May".

Or may not.

Of course, the prospect of being liable to pay for the damage he
has caused is what has triggered his flight.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

But...

QUOTE:
Criminal Damage Act 1971:

Yawn.

Yes, we already know that most[*] cyclists are not inclined to
assume responsibility for their actions. Particularly not financial
responsibility.

[* I have no difficulty with "most" there. I expect you'd rather it
were rendered as "some".]


You have neglected to provide evidence to support this claim.

You really are the clown of the group. But, you do give us a good laugh with
your postings.

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 5:33:09 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 17:09, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:58:24 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 16:49, Simon Jester wrote:

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 4:14:16 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 15:41, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 3:02:28 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/09/2019 14:47, Simon Jester wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ALHl-dCl_U
Skip to 5:00

Most cyclists would have stopped and offered to pay for the damage.
Any decent law abiding motorist would say he only needed to pay the windsceen excess and the insurance would take care of it.
Any decent human being would be more concerned with the cyclist's well being.

SUMMARY:
A negligent and reckless cyclist causes damage to someone else's
property (that other person behaving entirely reasonably and lawfully)
and then scarpers as fast as he can without even speaking to the victim,
hampered only by the fact that he has damaged his bicycle and cannot
ride it. Instead, he wheels it away (on foot) as fast as he can,
apparently to the incredulity of the victim.

That about sums it up.

That's what ""Summary" means.

As I said most cyclists would take responsibility for their actions, glad you agree.

I am happy to do so, save for the fact that we might disagree on the
word "most". Amend it to the more neutral "some" and I can agree in full.

How about ' the vast majority', unless you can prove otherwise.
We have presumption of innocence in this country.

"Some" is as far as I can reasonably go. And as far as you can
reasonably expect me to go.

Agreed, when it comes to cyclists you are not interested in facts, only bigotry.

You have no facts. certainly none to support your claim that most
cyclists would behave properly.


Innocent until proven guilty. It is up to you to provide evidence to the contrary.

But you have plenty of bigotry undderpinning your general position(s).
That's not a statement of the absolute. it's a statement of tendency.

Please provide evidence to support this claim.


We don't see what happens next.

My estimate is that there is in excess of £1,000 worth of damage done to
the victim's property.

Typical motorist response, more concerned with material objects than people.

The criminal walked away from the scene of the crime, first wheeling,
then later carrying, his bicycle.

He seemed fit enough to put a fair distance between himself and the
victim despite that burden.

Injuries may manifest themselves later.

"May".

Or may not.

Of course, the prospect of being liable to pay for the damage he has
caused is what has triggered his flight.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

But...

QUOTE:
Criminal Damage Act 1971:

Yawn.

Yes, we already know that most[*] cyclists are not inclined to assume
responsibility for their actions. Particularly not financial responsibility.

[* I have no difficulty with "most" there. I expect you'd rather it were
rendered as "some".]

You have neglected to provide evidence to support this claim.

OK, I take that back.

So you admit you are wrong.