|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist threatened to stab woman, yet no charges brought. Why?
On 18/01/2018 23:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/01/18 15:19, JNugent wrote: On 17/01/2018 09:16, TMS320 wrote: On 16/01/18 17:29, MrCheerful wrote: Abuse, physical assault, crminal damage and threatening to wound. Why no charges?? http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...rnemouth_Road/ "The driver of a black Honda CRV – a local woman aged in her 40s – challenged a female cyclist who she believed was about to go through a red traffic light." A vigilante, huh? Was it a verbal challenge, illegal use of the horn or a threat with a lethal weapon? Reading it, it sounds much more like a criminal on a bike versus a law-abiding victim, doesn't it? It says of the driver "believed [the person on the bicycle] was about to go through a red traffic light". An attempt at telepathy. Was it you? "It was reported that the cyclist then verbally abused the woman, kicked and punched the car, attempted to rip the wing mirror from the vehicle and then opened the passenger door and slammed it shut." A description of the bike coming from behind, legally using the space, and the driver deciding it was a good idea to squeeze it against the kerb. Do you approve of the criminal cyclist's actions? No charges have been brought so there is no chance of it going to court to prove criminal action. I thought you held that principle in high regard. Don't dissemble (break that longstanding habit of yours). Do you approve of the cyclist's criminal actions? Or do you stick to your usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong? |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist threatened to stab woman, yet no charges brought. Why?
On 18/01/18 23:49, JNugent wrote:
On 18/01/2018 23:25, TMS320 wrote: On 17/01/18 15:19, JNugent wrote: On 17/01/2018 09:16, TMS320 wrote: On 16/01/18 17:29, MrCheerful wrote: Abuse, physical assault, crminal damage and threatening to wound. Why no charges?? http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...rnemouth_Road/ "The driver of a black Honda CRV – a local woman aged in her 40s – challenged a female cyclist who she believed was about to go through a red traffic light." A vigilante, huh? Was it a verbal challenge, illegal use of the horn or a threat with a lethal weapon? Reading it, it sounds much more like a criminal on a bike versus a law-abiding victim, doesn't it? It says of the driver "believed [the person on the bicycle] was about to go through a red traffic light". An attempt at telepathy. Was it you? "It was reported that the cyclist then verbally abused the woman, kicked and punched the car, attempted to rip the wing mirror from the vehicle and then opened the passenger door and slammed it shut." A description of the bike coming from behind, legally using the space, and the driver deciding it was a good idea to squeeze it against the kerb. Do you approve of the criminal cyclist's actions? No charges have been brought so there is no chance of it going to court to prove criminal action. I thought you held that principle in high regard. Don't dissemble (break that longstanding habit of yours). Do you approve of the cyclist's criminal actions? What criminal actions? Or do you stick to your usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong? I have no "usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong". When the press report has a funny smell I say so. If you want to argue then you suggest the scenario - mainly the likely position of the bicycle relative to the car when the "challenge" was made. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist threatened to stab woman, yet no charges brought. Why?
On 19/01/2018 00:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/01/18 23:49, JNugent wrote: On 18/01/2018 23:25, TMS320 wrote: On 17/01/18 15:19, JNugent wrote: On 17/01/2018 09:16, TMS320 wrote: On 16/01/18 17:29, MrCheerful wrote: Abuse, physical assault, crminal damage and threatening to wound. Why no charges?? http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/new...rnemouth_Road/ "The driver of a black Honda CRV – a local woman aged in her 40s – challenged a female cyclist who she believed was about to go through a red traffic light." A vigilante, huh? Was it a verbal challenge, illegal use of the horn or a threat with a lethal weapon? Reading it, it sounds much more like a criminal on a bike versus a law-abiding victim, doesn't it? It says of the driver "believed [the person on the bicycle] was about to go through a red traffic light". An attempt at telepathy. Was it you? "It was reported that the cyclist then verbally abused the woman, kicked and punched the car, attempted to rip the wing mirror from the vehicle and then opened the passenger door and slammed it shut." A description of the bike coming from behind, legally using the space, and the driver deciding it was a good idea to squeeze it against the kerb. Do you approve of the criminal cyclist's actions? No charges have been brought so there is no chance of it going to court to prove criminal action. I thought you held that principle in high regard. Don't dissemble (break that longstanding habit of yours). Do you approve of the cyclist's criminal actions? What criminal actions? How about "It was reported that the cyclist then verbally abused the woman, kicked and punched the car, attempted to rip the wing mirror from the vehicle and then opened the passenger door and slammed it shut", for a start? Do you approve of that? Or do you stick to your usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong? I have no "usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong". When the press report has a funny smell I say so. If you want to argue then you suggest the scenario - mainly the likely position of the bicycle relative to the car when the "challenge" was made. I remember once driving down a street in a small NW midlands town and being flashed and flagged down by the occupants of a car facing the other way. They advised me that I was going the wrong way in a one-way street. And so I was (inadvertently). I took the advice in good part and turned my vehicle around in as short a distance as was possible so as to comply with the law. Years before that, I was waiting at a set of traffic lights in Holloway, London when a cab driver honked his horn and called across to me that I, waiting on the right under the impression that the street was a one-way street, was in fact on the wrong side of a two way road (not an offence as such, but not ideal). I thanked him and complied with normal directional woking as soon as the red lighht turned green. Why don't cyclists take such advice well? Why do they invariably attack the messenger, usually with obscenities and threats? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist threatened to stab woman, yet no charges brought. Why?
On 22/01/18 01:27, JNugent wrote:
On 19/01/2018 00:31, TMS320 wrote: On 18/01/18 23:49, JNugent wrote: Do you approve of the cyclist's criminal actions? What criminal actions? How about "It was reported that the cyclist then verbally abused the woman, kicked and punched the car, attempted to rip the wing mirror from the vehicle and then opened the passenger door and slammed it shut", for a start? Do you approve of that? "It was reported..." We don't know what made the driver "believe" an event that hadn't taken place was going to take place and how the "challenge" took place. I don't envisage a scene where the rider was stopped somewhere in front of the car and the driver calling from an open window prompted the rider to turn round and cause damage. I envisage the driver saw the rider legally filtering from behind and decided to close the gap to the kerb. Except it was the wrong moment, causing the rider to crash into the side of the car. I asked you to tell us how you think it might have unfolded. You haven't. Or do you stick to your usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong? I have no "usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong". When the press report has a funny smell I say so. If you want to argue then you suggest the scenario - mainly the likely position of the bicycle relative to the car when the "challenge" was made. I remember once driving down a street in a small NW midlands town and being flashed and flagged down by the occupants of a car facing the other way. They advised me that I was going the wrong way in a one-way street. And so I was (inadvertently). So what? Why don't cyclists take such advice well? I was once in a small group, of I think 4 or 5 - all men, riding in single file (1), with a long stretch with nowhere for us to pull in safely to allow a woman in an open-topped Porsche to get past. When she eventually got past, she stopped ahead (2) and got out (3)(4) to wave us down; and at our discretion (5) we pulled up and had an amicable conversation about it. I don't remember what was concluded. (1) a note for some whingers (2) an important difference to cutting in and stopping (3) so to present herself as a person, not as a driver (4) the time it takes to get out of a car gives an indication of how far I mean by 'ahead' (5) a condition allowed to us because of point 2 Again, so what? Why do they invariably attack the messenger, usually with obscenities and threats? From direct personal experience or from an occasional article in the press? If it's personal, perhaps it tells us more about you. The press doesn't inform what is "invariable" (such as producing a report for each of 100 pedestrian KSIs by a motor vehicle per week) or of the millions of events where nothing in particular happened. It could also be that when a driver attempts to pass a message to a bicycle user, they often use their car in a dangerous or threatening way (unlike my example). This won't be reported when the story is from the driver's perspective. Besides, drivers don't have any moral ground to tell someone how to ride a bicycle. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist threatened to stab woman, yet no charges brought. Why?
On 22/01/2018 16:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/01/18 01:27, JNugent wrote: On 19/01/2018 00:31, TMS320 wrote: On 18/01/18 23:49, JNugent wrote: Do you approve of the cyclist's criminal actions? What criminal actions? How about "It was reported that the cyclist then verbally abused the Â*woman, kicked and punched the car, attempted to rip the wing mirror Â*from the vehicle and then opened the passenger door and slammed it shut", for a start? Do you approve of that? "It was reported..." Unless we all just happened to be there at the time and were all looking in the same direction, what more could you hope for, other than a report? We don't know what made the driver "believe" an event that hadn't taken place was going to take place and how the "challenge" took place. You can always ask her. I don't envisage a scene where the rider was stopped somewhere in front of the car and the driver calling from an open window prompted the rider to turn round and cause damage. I envisage the driver saw the rider legally filtering from behind and decided to close the gap to the kerb. Except it was the wrong moment, causing the rider to crash into the side of the car. There was no report of a collision. You fabricated it. I asked you to tell us how you think it might have unfolded. You haven't. As reported, of course. What competing evidence (as o[posed to yopur imagination) do you have? Or do you stick to your usual nonsensical line that cyclists can Â*do no wrong? I have no "usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong". It inspired pou to make up a story about a non-existent collision. When the press report has a funny smell I say so. If you want to argue then you suggest the scenario - mainly the likely position of the bicycle relative to the car when the "challenge" was made. I remember once driving down a street in a small NW midlands town and being flashed and flagged down by the occupants of a car facing the other way. They advised me that I was going the wrong way in a one-way street. And so I was (inadvertently). So what? So that's the way that drivers, in my experience, react to being told that they are doing something wrong: they stop doing it. Why don't cyclists take such advice well? I was once in a small group, of I think 4 or 5 - all men, riding in single file (1), with a long stretch with nowhere for us to pull in safely to allow a woman in an open-topped Porsche to get past. When she eventually got past, she stopped ahead (2) and got out (3)(4) to wave us down; and at our discretion (5) we pulled up and had an amicable conversation about it. I don't remember what was concluded. What are you talking about? 1 (1) a note for some whingers (2) an important difference to cutting in and stopping (3) so to present herself as a person, not as a driver (4) the time it takes to get out of a car gives an indication of how far I mean by 'ahead' (5) a condition allowed to us because of point 2 What are you talking about? 2 Again, so what? It's difficult to say, since your tale(s) is/are irrelevant to the thread. Why do they invariably attack the messenger, usually with obscenities and threats? From direct personal experience or from an occasional article in the press? If it's personal, perhaps it tells us more about you. The press doesn't inform what is "invariable" (such as producing a report for each of 100 pedestrian KSIs by a motor vehicle per week) or of the millions of events where nothing in particular happened. From all three of direct experience, frequent observation (especially in London) and press articles such as the one which gave rise to this thread. And there is the little matter of such things being reported here on usenet as well. It could also be that when a driver attempts to pass a message to a bicycle user, they often use their car in a dangerous or threatening way (unlike my example). This won't be reported when the story is from the driver's perspective. Sounding a horn? Advising a cyclist orally that they are going the wrong way in a one way street? Besides, drivers don't have any moral ground to tell someone how to ride a bicycle. The mechanical skioll of riding a bike is one thing. Obeying the rules of the road is quite another. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist threatened to stab woman, yet no charges brought. Why?
On 22/01/18 16:44, JNugent wrote:
On 22/01/2018 16:31, TMS320 wrote: On 22/01/18 01:27, JNugent wrote: On 19/01/2018 00:31, TMS320 wrote: On 18/01/18 23:49, JNugent wrote: Do you approve of the cyclist's criminal actions? What criminal actions? How about "It was reported that the cyclist then verbally abused the Â*woman, kicked and punched the car, attempted to rip the wing mirror Â*from the vehicle and then opened the passenger door and slammed it shut", for a start? Do you approve of that? "It was reported..." Unless we all just happened to be there at the time and were all looking in the same direction, what more could you hope for, other than a report? We don't know what made the driver "believe" an event that hadn't taken place was going to take place and how the "challenge" took place. You can always ask her. I don't envisage a scene where the rider was stopped somewhere in front of the car and the driver calling from an open window prompted the rider to turn round and cause damage. I envisage the driver saw the rider legally filtering from behind and decided to close the gap to the kerb. Except it was the wrong moment, causing the rider to crash into the side of the car. There was no report of a collision. You fabricated it. I have made a suggestion, not fabricated anything. I asked you to tell us how you think it might have unfolded. You haven't. As reported, of course. You claim to be an experienced road user. Use some imagination. What competing evidence (as o[posed to yopur imagination) do you have? Or do you stick to your usual nonsensical line that cyclists can Â*do no wrong? I have no "usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong". It inspired pou to make up a story about a non-existent collision. When the press report has a funny smell I say so. If you want to argue then you suggest the scenario - mainly the likely position of the bicycle relative to the car when the "challenge" was made. I remember once driving down a street in a small NW midlands town and being flashed and flagged down by the occupants of a car facing the other way. They advised me that I was going the wrong way in a one-way street. And so I was (inadvertently). So what? So that's the way that drivers, in my experience, react to being told that they are doing something wrong: they stop doing it. They told while they are moving? Why don't cyclists take such advice well? I was once in a small group, of I think 4 or 5 - all men, riding in single file (1), with a long stretch with nowhere for us to pull in safely to allow a woman in an open-topped Porsche to get past. When she eventually got past, she stopped ahead (2) and got out (3)(4) to wave us down; and at our discretion (5) we pulled up and had an amicable conversation about it. I don't remember what was concluded. What are you talking about? 1 (1) a note for some whingers (2) an important difference to cutting in and stopping (3) so to present herself as a person, not as a driver (4) the time it takes to get out of a car gives an indication of how far I mean by 'ahead' (5) a condition allowed to us because of point 2 What are you talking about? 2 Again, so what? It's difficult to say, since your tale(s) is/are irrelevant to the thread. No more irrelevant than your anecdote. Why do they invariably attack the messenger, usually with obscenities and threats? From direct personal experience or from an occasional article in the press? If it's personal, perhaps it tells us more about you. The press doesn't inform what is "invariable" (such as producing a report for each of 100 pedestrian KSIs by a motor vehicle per week) or of the millions of events where nothing in particular happened. From all three of direct experience, frequent observation (especially in London) and press articles such as the one which gave rise to this thread. And there is the little matter of such things being reported here on usenet as well. You are influenced by press and newsgroups? So the fact that the press doesn't produce over 100 articles a week about pedestrian KSIs means they don't happen? My invitation to meet in London to point out what you claim to observe is still open. It could also be that when a driver attempts to pass a message to a bicycle user, they often use their car in a dangerous or threatening way (unlike my example). This won't be reported when the story is from the driver's perspective. Sounding a horn? It might be. It can also be dangerous manouevres. Advising a cyclist orally that they are going the wrong way in a one way street? As above, how do you talk to a moving cyclist? Besides, drivers don't have any moral ground to tell someone how to ride a bicycle. The mechanical skioll of riding a bike is one thing. It's nothing to do with mechanical skills Obeying the rules of the road is quite another. Drivers don't have any moral ground. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist threatened to stab woman, yet no charges brought. Why?
On 22/01/2018 23:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/01/18 16:44, JNugent wrote: On 22/01/2018 16:31, TMS320 wrote: On 22/01/18 01:27, JNugent wrote: On 19/01/2018 00:31, TMS320 wrote: On 18/01/18 23:49, JNugent wrote: Do you approve of the cyclist's criminal actions? What criminal actions? How about "It was reported that the cyclist then verbally abused the Â*woman, kicked and punched the car, attempted to rip the wing mirror Â*from the vehicle and then opened the passenger door and slammed it shut", for a start? Do you approve of that? "It was reported..." Unless we all just happened to be there at the time and were all looking in the same direction, what more could you hope for, other than a report? We don't know what made the driver "believe" an event that hadn't taken place was going to take place and how the "challenge" took place. You can always ask her. I don't envisage a scene where the rider was stopped somewhere in front of the car and the driver calling from an open window prompted the rider to turn round and cause damage. I envisage the driver saw the rider legally filtering from behind and decided to close the gap to the kerb. Except it was the wrong moment, causing the rider to crash into the side of the car. There was no report of a collision. You fabricated it. I have made a suggestion, not fabricated anything. You fabricated a story. There isn;'t the slightest bit of evidence to support it and plenty to suggest something different. As I said, it's just a symptom of your "cyclists cannot do anything wrong" beliefs. I asked you to tell us how you think it might have unfolded. You haven't. As reported, of course. You claim to be an experienced road user. Use some imagination. And fabricate something, like you did, you mean? It's not even as though the report was not 101% credible. We all know that cyclists are very willing to show contempt for the law. What competing evidence (as o[posed to yopur imagination) do you have? Or do you stick to your usual nonsensical line that cyclists can Â*do no wrong? I have no "usual nonsensical line that cyclists can do no wrong". It inspired pou to make up a story about a non-existent collision. When the press report has a funny smell I say so. If you want to argue then you suggest the scenario - mainly the likely position of the bicycle relative to the car when the "challenge" was made. I remember once driving down a street in a small NW midlands town and being flashed and flagged down by the occupants of a car facing the other way. They advised me that I was going the wrong way in a one-way street. And so I was (inadvertently). So what? So that's the way that drivers, in my experience, react to being told that they are doing something wrong: they stop doing it. They told while they are moving? I stopped to listen on the one occasion and was already stopped (at a red traffic light - fancy that!) on the other. I listened politely to advice and heeded it. Why don't cyclists take such advice well? I was once in a small group, of I think 4 or 5 - all men, riding in single file (1), with a long stretch with nowhere for us to pull in safely to allow a woman in an open-topped Porsche to get past. When she eventually got past, she stopped ahead (2) and got out (3)(4) to wave us down; and at our discretion (5) we pulled up and had an amicable conversation about it. I don't remember what was concluded. What are you talking about? 1 (1) a note for some whingers (2) an important difference to cutting in and stopping (3) so to present herself as a person, not as a driver (4) the time it takes to get out of a car gives an indication of how far I mean by 'ahead' (5) a condition allowed to us because of point 2 What are you talking about? 2 Again, so what? It's difficult to say, since your tale(s) is/are irrelevant to the thread. No more irrelevant than your anecdote. My tales (that's two in 46 years of driving, BTW) were true. Why do they invariably attack the messenger, usually with obscenities and threats? From direct personal experience or from an occasional article in the press? If it's personal, perhaps it tells us more about you. The press doesn't inform what is "invariable" (such as producing a report for each of 100 pedestrian KSIs by a motor vehicle per week) or of the millions of events where nothing in particular happened. Â*From all three of direct experience, frequent observation (especially in London) and press articles such as the one which gave rise to this thread. And there is the little matter of such things being reported here on usenet as well. You are influenced by press and newsgroups? So the fact that the press doesn't produce over 100 articles a week about pedestrian KSIs means they don't happen? My invitation to meet in London to point out what you claim to observe is still open. It could also be that when a driver attempts to pass a message to a bicycle user, they often use their car in a dangerous or threatening way (unlike my example). This won't be reported when the story is from the driver's perspective. Sounding a horn? It might be. It can also be dangerous manouevres. Advising a cyclist orally that they are going the wrong way in a one way street? As above, how do you talk to a moving cyclist? With your voice? Wait until he stops at the next red traffic light? Ah... there's an obvious difficulty... Besides, drivers don't have any moral ground to tell someone how to ride a bicycle. The mechanical skioll of riding a bike is one thing. It's nothing to do with mechanical skills Obeying the rules of the road is quite another. Drivers don't have any moral ground. Rubbish. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclist threatened to stab woman, yet no charges brought. Why?
On 23/01/18 01:09, JNugent wrote:
On 22/01/2018 23:37, TMS320 wrote: On 22/01/18 16:44, JNugent wrote: On 22/01/2018 16:31, TMS320 wrote: I asked you to tell us how you think it might have unfolded. You haven't. As reported, of course. You claim to be an experienced road user. Use some imagination. On reflection, I suppose it's a big ask to get imagination out of a dumb program running in a computer somewhere. And fabricate something, like you did, you mean? Fabricate - invent (something) in order to deceive. There is no deception in trying to put it into a physical context. It's not even as though the report was not 101% credible. We all know that cyclists are very willing to show contempt for the law. There is no hint of law broken before the driver "challenged" the cyclist or in the moment between challenge and damage. You have decided - without evidence - that the damage was criminal. Just a symptom of your "cyclists cannot do anything right" belief. ... My tales (that's two in 46 years of driving, BTW) were true. So was mine. And it was only a few years ago. ... It could also be that when a driver attempts to pass a message to a bicycle user, they often use their car in a dangerous or threatening way (unlike my example). This won't be reported when the story is from the driver's perspective. Sounding a horn? It might be. It can also be dangerous manouevres. Advising a cyclist orally that they are going the wrong way in a one way street? As above, how do you talk to a moving cyclist? With your voice? Oh, are you also on a bike? Otherwise, what message are you going to get across in the three garbled words that arrive at his ears? Wait until he stops at the next red traffic light? That assumes you have the ability to get from the point where the "incident" occurred to that point faster than him. So you're obviously not on foot at this time. Ah... there's an obvious difficulty... Indeed. But not for the reason you're thinking. Besides, drivers don't have any moral ground to tell someone how to ride a bicycle. The mechanical skioll of riding a bike is one thing. It's nothing to do with mechanical skills Obeying the rules of the road is quite another. Drivers don't have any moral ground. Rubbish. It's a valid opinion. And I can say it as both driver and cyclist. What about you? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CYCLIST threatened to a stab a driver after a row in the street | MrCheerful | UK | 1 | December 16th 17 02:51 PM |
Driver threatened to 'run cyclist over' in terrifying road rageassault caught on camera | Bod[_5_] | UK | 103 | October 29th 17 09:27 AM |
Cyclist dead after alleged hit and run, woman faces 9 charges | Sir Ridesalot | Techniques | 4 | June 12th 15 10:19 PM |
Manslaughter charge brought over death of cyclist killed by bus while avoiding open car door | Simon Mason | UK | 13 | February 9th 12 08:03 AM |
Lady cyclist feels threatened by cars. | Simon Mason | UK | 46 | May 28th 04 09:45 PM |