Cyclist attacked by thug driver.

On 20/10/2010 11:44, Simon Mason wrote:

Road rage driver sentenced for ABH and gets a suspended jail sentence.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...-in-street.htm

"Mr Erdos, who suffered from swelling to the head and dizziness, spoke of his
anger in a statement to the court."
"He said: “This was an unprovoked attack and was completely unjustified. I
didn’t antagonise the male in any way.”

He's bound to see it that way, of course. But many would not see it the same
way. He had damaged someone else's property and was liable for the cost of
its repair and, one might argue, to offer apology. But he did neither. He
just rode away.

"Unjustified"?

Yes.

"Unprovoked"?

Hardly.

On 20 Oct, 18:25, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2010 11:44, Simon Mason wrote:

Road rage driver sentenced for ABH and gets a suspended jail sentence.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...clist-unconsci...

"Mr Erdos, who suffered from swelling to the head and dizziness, spoke of his
anger in a statement to the court."
"He said: “This was an unprovoked attack and was completely unjustified.. I
didn’t antagonise the male in any way.”

He's bound to see it that way, of course. But many would not see it the same
way. He had damaged someone else's property and was liable for the cost of
its repair and, one might argue, to offer apology. But he did neither. He
just rode away.

"Unjustified"?

Yes.

"Unprovoked"?

Hardly.

Where does it say that he damaged the mirror and that it needed to be
repaired?
It just says that he clipped it.
I've clipped door mirrors before and not even scratched them.

--
Simon Mason

On 20/10/2010 18:34, Simon Mason wrote:
On 20 Oct, 18:25, wrote:
On 20/10/2010 11:44, Simon Mason wrote:

Road rage driver sentenced for ABH and gets a suspended jail sentence.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...clist-unconsci...

"Mr Erdos, who suffered from swelling to the head and dizziness, spoke of his
anger in a statement to the court."
"He said: “This was an unprovoked attack and was completely unjustified. I
didn’t antagonise the male in any way.”

He's bound to see it that way, of course. But many would not see it the same
way. He had damaged someone else's property and was liable for the cost of
its repair and, one might argue, to offer apology. But he did neither. He
just rode away.

"Unjustified"?

Yes.

"Unprovoked"?

Hardly.

Where does it say that he damaged the mirror and that it needed to be
repaired?
It just says that he clipped it.
I've clipped door mirrors before and not even scratched them.

I see the point of your query, but the inescapable implication is that he had
damaged the mirror. The story puts it:

"Not thinking he had caused any damage, he rode on, but the collision was
witnessed by...".

That would be an odd way to record the fact that no damage was caused, even
for a local journalist.

On 20 Oct, 18:47, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2010 18:34, Simon Mason wrote:





On 20 Oct, 18:25, *wrote:
On 20/10/2010 11:44, Simon Mason wrote:

Road rage driver sentenced for ABH and gets a suspended jail sentence..
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...clist-unconsci....

"Mr Erdos, who suffered from swelling to the head and dizziness, spoke of his
anger in a statement to the court."
"He said: “This was an unprovoked attack and was completely unjustified. I
didn’t antagonise the male in any way.”

He's bound to see it that way, of course. But many would not see it the same
way. He had damaged someone else's property and was liable for the cost of
its repair and, one might argue, to offer apology. But he did neither. He
just rode away.

"Unjustified"?

Yes.

"Unprovoked"?

Hardly.

Where does it say that he damaged the mirror and that it needed to be
repaired?
It just says that he clipped it.
I've clipped door mirrors before and not even scratched them.

I see the point of your query, but the inescapable implication is that he had
damaged the mirror. The story puts it:

"Not thinking he had caused any damage, he rode on, but the collision was
witnessed by...".

That would be an odd way to record the fact that no damage was caused, even
for a local journalist.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I took it to mean that the cyclist would have stopped had he caused
any damage, but thinking that he had not caused any continued on his
way.
We cannot infer from the report whether any damage was caused as it is
not stated.
In any case, the penalty for clipping a door mirror is not being
beaten to a pulp.

--
Simon Mason

On 20/10/2010 18:55, Simon Mason wrote:
On 20 Oct, 18:47, wrote:
On 20/10/2010 18:34, Simon Mason wrote:





On 20 Oct, 18:25, wrote:
On 20/10/2010 11:44, Simon Mason wrote:

Road rage driver sentenced for ABH and gets a suspended jail sentence.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...clist-unconsci...

"Mr Erdos, who suffered from swelling to the head and dizziness, spoke of his
anger in a statement to the court."
"He said: “This was an unprovoked attack and was completely unjustified. I
didn’t antagonise the male in any way.”

He's bound to see it that way, of course. But many would not see it the same
way. He had damaged someone else's property and was liable for the cost of
its repair and, one might argue, to offer apology. But he did neither. He
just rode away.

"Unjustified"?

Yes.

"Unprovoked"?

Hardly.

Where does it say that he damaged the mirror and that it needed to be
repaired?
It just says that he clipped it.
I've clipped door mirrors before and not even scratched them.

I see the point of your query, but the inescapable implication is that he had
damaged the mirror. The story puts it:

"Not thinking he had caused any damage, he rode on, but the collision was
witnessed by...".

That would be an odd way to record the fact that no damage was caused, even
for a local journalist.

I took it to mean that the cyclist would have stopped had he caused
any damage, but thinking that he had not caused any continued on his
way.
We cannot infer from the report whether any damage was caused as it is
not stated.

I infer that damage was caused.

The rest of the article does not seem so incompetently written as to allow
such a doubt at that point.

In any case, the penalty for clipping a door mirror is not being
beaten to a pulp.

Is that what you infer to have happened?

Accidents happen, and those who garage their cars in the street must surely
grow used to them (in a small way). My reading of it is that riding away and
not offering an apology or payment foir repair had something to do with it.

On 20 Oct, 20:08, JNugent wrote:
On 20/10/2010 18:55, Simon Mason wrote:





On 20 Oct, 18:47, *wrote:
On 20/10/2010 18:34, Simon Mason wrote:

On 20 Oct, 18:25, * *wrote:
On 20/10/2010 11:44, Simon Mason wrote:

Road rage driver sentenced for ABH and gets a suspended jail sentence.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...clist-unconsci...

"Mr Erdos, who suffered from swelling to the head and dizziness, spoke of his
anger in a statement to the court."
"He said: “This was an unprovoked attack and was completely unjustified. I
didn’t antagonise the male in any way.”

He's bound to see it that way, of course. But many would not see it the same
way. He had damaged someone else's property and was liable for the cost of
its repair and, one might argue, to offer apology. But he did neither. He
just rode away.

"Unjustified"?

Yes.

"Unprovoked"?

Hardly.

Where does it say that he damaged the mirror and that it needed to be
repaired?
It just says that he clipped it.
I've clipped door mirrors before and not even scratched them.

I see the point of your query, but the inescapable implication is that he had
damaged the mirror. The story puts it:

"Not thinking he had caused any damage, he rode on, but the collision was
witnessed by...".

That would be an odd way to record the fact that no damage was caused, even
for a local journalist.
I took it to mean that the cyclist would have stopped had he caused
any damage, but thinking that he had not caused any continued on his
way.
We cannot infer from the report whether any damage was caused as it is
not stated.

I infer that damage was caused.

The rest of the article does not seem so incompetently written as to allow
such a doubt at that point.

And yet it was written in way that led me to think that the cyclist
had believed he had left no damage.
That is not the result of a totally unambiguous piece as you would
describe this article.

--
Simon Mason

On 20/10/2010 20:19, Simon Mason wrote:
On 20 Oct, 20:08, wrote:
On 20/10/2010 18:55, Simon Mason wrote:





On 20 Oct, 18:47, wrote:
On 20/10/2010 18:34, Simon Mason wrote:

On 20 Oct, 18:25, wrote:
On 20/10/2010 11:44, Simon Mason wrote:

Road rage driver sentenced for ABH and gets a suspended jail sentence.
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home...clist-unconsci...

"Mr Erdos, who suffered from swelling to the head and dizziness, spoke of his
anger in a statement to the court."
"He said: “This was an unprovoked attack and was completely unjustified. I
didn’t antagonise the male in any way.”

He's bound to see it that way, of course. But many would not see it the same
way. He had damaged someone else's property and was liable for the cost of
its repair and, one might argue, to offer apology. But he did neither. He
just rode away.

"Unjustified"?

Yes.

"Unprovoked"?

Hardly.

Where does it say that he damaged the mirror and that it needed to be
repaired?
It just says that he clipped it.
I've clipped door mirrors before and not even scratched them.

I see the point of your query, but the inescapable implication is that he had
damaged the mirror. The story puts it:

"Not thinking he had caused any damage, he rode on, but the collision was
witnessed by...".

That would be an odd way to record the fact that no damage was caused, even
for a local journalist.
I took it to mean that the cyclist would have stopped had he caused
any damage, but thinking that he had not caused any continued on his
way.
We cannot infer from the report whether any damage was caused as it is
not stated.

I infer that damage was caused.

The rest of the article does not seem so incompetently written as to allow
such a doubt at that point.

And yet it was written in way that led me to think that the cyclist
had believed he had left no damage.
That is not the result of a totally unambiguous piece as you would
describe this article.

I wonder how (and why) we have come to such different conclusions?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 20/10/2010 20:19, Simon Mason wrote:

And yet it was written in way that led me to think that the cyclist
had believed he had left no damage.
That is not the result of a totally unambiguous piece as you would
describe this article.

I wonder how (and why) we have come to such different conclusions?

Maybe the article was not 100% clear on whether there was any damage or not.
That could account for it.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On 21 Oct, 11:38, "Simon Mason" wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message

...

On 20/10/2010 20:19, Simon Mason wrote:

And yet it was written in way that led me to think that the cyclist
had believed he had left no damage.
That is not the result of a totally unambiguous piece as you would
describe this article.

I wonder how (and why) we have come to such different conclusions?

Maybe the article was not 100% clear on whether there was any damage or not.
That could account for it.


JNugent tends to see through his own particular prism. Especially
events involving cyclists.

Remember his take on the Oxford Street taxi and cyclist case:-


JNugent: "Because of course, everybody should be free to "seek" (after
the event)
"witnesses" who mysteriously could not be idenified at the scene of an
incident, shouldn't they?

Now, about the bit you snipped :
I do hope you're not implying through your use of scare quotes that
the witnesses in this case weren't actually there. Is anybody
claiming that the witnesses in that case were anything but
truthful?
You don't want to answer that one?

I find the whole process exceptionally suspicious.

Don't you?

The very least that should be done in cases of this sort is that the
way that
"witnesses" have been found (especially by appeal to sympathetic
individuals
on the internet) should have to be declared to the court by the party
calling
them, *and* the "witness" should be closely examined - by the court -
as to
why they had not come forward of their own accord (eg, by making a
statement
to the police in the normal way)."

He seemed unable to understand that a witness had come forward at the
time and been "mislaid" (more than once) by the police. He seemed to
have no problem with the taxi-driver's vacationing witness, and used
him as an excuse for not accepting the verdict.

The poor chap admitted:-

"Indeed. I am surprised - and not a little dismayed - by that
verdict."

I think that his prism may be flawed.

On 21/10/2010 11:38, Simon Mason wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 20/10/2010 20:19, Simon Mason wrote:

And yet it was written in way that led me to think that the cyclist
had believed he had left no damage.
That is not the result of a totally unambiguous piece as you would
describe this article.

I wonder how (and why) we have come to such different conclusions?

Maybe the article was not 100% clear on whether there was any damage or not.
That could account for it.

:-)

Yes, I suppose so.