Skinny runt cyclist attacks woman driver in Surrey

On Mar 17, 11:28*am, Squashme wrote:
On Mar 17, 8:44*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:









Phil W Lee wrote:
Squashme considered Fri, 15 Mar 2013 02:17:35
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Mar 15, 7:09 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:17 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2013 17:08, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 14/03/2013 08:02, Mrcheerful wrote:

Why does cycling make riders so aggressive?
Another assault that might not have happened if cycles had
registration numbers.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/21...ed_school_run_...

I wonder what the woman did to provoke the attack.
Whatever it was, I bet she wont do it again.

What?

People frequently do nothing repeatedly.

Try to put yourself in the victim's position. Attacked in front
of her children and other children - almost certainly permanently
changing her attitude towards cyclists.

and not in a good way.

Do you mean that?

I thought the meaning was clear. I will try to make it clearer just
for you:
Before this incident, the woman would have held an opinion about
cyclists, after the incident her opinion of cyclists will have
degraded.

Incidents such as this do not improve the image of any cyclist.

And that is "a good way" for you.

If it discourages her from threatening cyclists with her 4x4 in the
future, probably.

I couldn't personally give a **** whether it is due to fear, respect,
sympathy, or anything else for that matter.
The fact is that the police, cps and courts have failed over a
substantial period of time to properly enforce decent driving
standards, to the extent that motons now feel "entitled" to bully and
intimidate those using smaller vehicles than their own.
If a few of those motons need to be decked to change that attitude, so
be it. *Dinosaurs can't win in the end, and I have no sympathy
whatsoever with those who dish it out but can't take it.

You will find that it is the continual law breaking by the majority of
cyclists that has caused the lowering of regard for them by the public at
large.

Statistics? Source?
Whereas the continual annual slaughter of the public by motorists has
no effect on their regard.

Those horrible slaughtering motorists. Almost as bad as those horrible
slaughtering homes, which kill more people annually than
motorists...but which of course you don't have a silly ideological
prejudice against*.

If you think about how many millions of people drive each day, and how
many other road users they pass closely, and the speeds they do it at,
it's absolutely incredible how good they are at avoiding collisions.
The benefits that all those journeys provide MASSIVELY outweigh the
relatively very remote chance of having any kind of collision, let
alone a KSI. And anyone who actually thinks about it for a second will
be able to see that. Anyone, that is, who doesn't have a pre-existing
ideological prejudice against all motorists...

--
* Although maybe if you're such a trendy liberal then you should be
trying to encourage people to live outside, in the arms of Mother
Earth? You're probably the sort of person who thinks that would be
some kind of wonderful romanticised existence. So now that you want
people out of their homes like you want them out of their cars, you
can apply the same useless strategy as with cars, and try to con them
out of their homes by playing up how "dangerous" houses are. And once
again, people will just laugh at you and ignore your dogmatic and
dangerous "advice".

On Mar 17, 11:32*am, Squashme wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:10*am, Dave-Cyclists VORT
wrote:









On 16/03/2013 22:25, Phil W Lee wrote:

Squashme considered Fri, 15 Mar 2013 02:17:35
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Mar 15, 7:09 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:17 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2013 17:08, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 14/03/2013 08:02, Mrcheerful wrote:

Why does cycling make riders so aggressive?
Another assault that might not have happened if cycles had
registration numbers.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/21...ed_school_run_...

I wonder what the woman did to provoke the attack.
Whatever it was, I bet she wont do it again.

What?

People frequently do nothing repeatedly.

Try to put yourself in the victim's position. Attacked in front of
her children and other children - almost certainly permanently
changing her attitude towards cyclists.

and not in a good way.

Do you mean that?

I thought the meaning was clear. *I will try to make it clearer just for
you:
Before this incident, the woman would have held an opinion about cyclists,
after the incident her opinion of cyclists will have degraded.

Incidents such as this do not improve the image of any cyclist.

And that is "a good way" for you.

If it discourages her from threatening cyclists with her 4x4 in the
future, probably.

But we gave no evidence whatsoever to show that she did, or has ever,
dome that. Only your deluded little brain imagines that she might have.

Only your deluded little brain imagines that a cyclist MUST have
attacked her for no reason.

As others have alluded to, there was probably a reason...in the
cyclist's mind. But the cyclist being deranged enough to decide that
(e.g.) the very act of driving a hated 4x4 or overtaking within 10m is
justification for an attack does not make it so. Until and unless we
hear differently, there was no reason for the attack in terms of the
driver's actions, whatever feeble and delusional thought processes
went through the cyclist's mind beforehand.

You and the others are blatantly biaseed against all drivers in all
circumstances, as we've all seen a million times. Can you cite a
single post of yours where you unreservedly say that a collision
between a cyclist and a car was solely the cyclist's fault? Or do you
just think that the driver is always automatically at fault, because
they "shouldn't be there"? Why not say that instead of scrambling to
find lame excuses for the cyclist each time?

On 17/03/2013 15:13, M Wicks wrote:
On Mar 17, 11:28 am, Squashme wrote:
On Mar 17, 8:44 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:









Phil W Lee wrote:
Squashme considered Fri, 15 Mar 2013 02:17:35
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Mar 15, 7:09 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:17 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2013 17:08, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 14/03/2013 08:02, Mrcheerful wrote:

Why does cycling make riders so aggressive?
Another assault that might not have happened if cycles had
registration numbers.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/21...ed_school_run_...

I wonder what the woman did to provoke the attack.
Whatever it was, I bet she wont do it again.

What?

People frequently do nothing repeatedly.

Try to put yourself in the victim's position. Attacked in front
of her children and other children - almost certainly permanently
changing her attitude towards cyclists.

and not in a good way.

Do you mean that?

I thought the meaning was clear. I will try to make it clearer just
for you:
Before this incident, the woman would have held an opinion about
cyclists, after the incident her opinion of cyclists will have
degraded.

Incidents such as this do not improve the image of any cyclist.

And that is "a good way" for you.

If it discourages her from threatening cyclists with her 4x4 in the
future, probably.

I couldn't personally give a **** whether it is due to fear, respect,
sympathy, or anything else for that matter.
The fact is that the police, cps and courts have failed over a
substantial period of time to properly enforce decent driving
standards, to the extent that motons now feel "entitled" to bully and
intimidate those using smaller vehicles than their own.
If a few of those motons need to be decked to change that attitude, so
be it. Dinosaurs can't win in the end, and I have no sympathy
whatsoever with those who dish it out but can't take it.

You will find that it is the continual law breaking by the majority of
cyclists that has caused the lowering of regard for them by the public at
large.

Statistics? Source?
Whereas the continual annual slaughter of the public by motorists has
no effect on their regard.

Those horrible slaughtering motorists. Almost as bad as those horrible
slaughtering homes, which kill more people annually than
motorists...but which of course you don't have a silly ideological
prejudice against*.

If you think about how many millions of people drive each day, and how
many other road users they pass closely, and the speeds they do it at,
it's absolutely incredible how good they are at avoiding collisions.
The benefits that all those journeys provide MASSIVELY outweigh the
relatively very remote chance of having any kind of collision, let
alone a KSI. And anyone who actually thinks about it for a second will
be able to see that. Anyone, that is, who doesn't have a pre-existing
ideological prejudice against all motorists...

A point I have made many times. They UK's 33,000,000 motorists average
12,000 miles per annum. A total of 396,000,000,000 miles driven. In
2010 there were 1,857 deaths - 1 for every 213,247,173 miles drive.

To put that in perspective, the sun is 92,960,000 miles away.

A simply incredible safety record.





--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay £45 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.
Only £10 billion of this is spent of roads.

On Mar 14, 9:56*pm, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2013 17:08, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 14/03/2013 08:02, Mrcheerful wrote:

Why does cycling make riders so aggressive?
Another assault that might not have happened if cycles had registration
numbers.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/21...ed_school_run_....
out_of_car

I wonder what the woman did to provoke the attack.
Whatever it was, I bet she wont do it again.

What?

People frequently do nothing repeatedly.

Try to put yourself in the victim's position. Attacked in front of her
children and other children - almost certainly permanently changing her
attitude towards cyclists.

quite, while I suspect there probably is also a back story, in all
probablity the driver was unaware of it.

in all probablity he probably is embarrised at loosing it quite so
badly.

Traitor. What happened to the pledge all "real cyclists" here made, to
never blame any fellow cyclist for anything even slightly? Do you
realise what you've done?

Just more evidence of what a mistake it was to allow your wife to
moderate URCM. I wouldn't be surprised if you were both fake cyclists
(but not for the same reasons as Squashme, of course).

On 17/03/2013 15:24, M Wicks wrote:
On Mar 17, 11:32 am, Squashme wrote:


Or do you
just think that the driver is always automatically at fault, because
they "shouldn't be there"? Why not say that instead of scrambling to
find lame excuses for the cyclist each time?

Of course, as any right minded person knows, it's the cyclists who
shouldn't be there.

A push bike is a 'silly Victorian diversion' and not a viable method of
transport in the 21st century.

Plus of course, they are sponging freeloaders.

--
Dave-Cyclists VORT
Motorists pay £45 billion a year in extra taxes, specifically so they
can use the roads.
Only £10 billion of this is spent of roads.

On Mar 17, 2:54*pm, M Wicks wrote:
On Mar 15, 6:16*pm, Squashme wrote:









On Mar 15, 6:06*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Simon Weissel wrote:
On 15/03/2013 16:42, Partac wrote:

"Simon Weissel" *wrote in message
... On 15/03/2013 16:27, Partac
wrote:

"Simon Weissel" *wrote in message
... On 15/03/2013 11:27, Mrcheerful
wrote:

I would like to see cyclists use the roads safely, legally and
sensibly, rarely be in a crash and thought well of by everyone.
Incidents
like this mean it is not going to happen.

Perhaps you should start a crusade to teach drivers to behave more
courteously and respectfully toward other road users. That way
there is less likely to be altercations such as this.

Psycholists SOP.
It's never, never the cyclist's fault.
It's ALWAYS the motorist.

No, just most of the time.

Do you have any evidence for that, or did you just make it up?

Do your own research, there is plenty of evidence, but you wont like
it :-)

this investigation found that 74 percent of crashes were the cyclists fault:http://rosemont.patch.com/articles/c...-at-fault-in-m...

That's the US. They blame the cyclists for not carrying guns as
deterrents.

Proper little lefty, aren't we? I suppose you hate nuclear power and
GM foods as well (but can't come up with anything but junk science to
"justify" your views...sound familiar?) A bit sad to see an old man
being such a slave to what he thinks is "trendy". Are you ever going
to give it all up and age with some dignity?

It's not that the left are wrong about everything by any means
(evolution being an obvious example). But why insist on toeing the
"lefty party line" on absolutely everything, instead of coming up with
your own opinions in each case? Do you think the PC brigade are going
to punish you if you even begin to consider whether the alleged
negatives of car and gun ownership really outweigh the positives to
the extent that blanket bans are desirable on both?

What is that expression that they use on here? Oh yes.

Get help.

On Mar 17, 3:13*pm, M Wicks wrote:
On Mar 17, 11:28*am, Squashme wrote:









On Mar 17, 8:44*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Phil W Lee wrote:
Squashme considered Fri, 15 Mar 2013 02:17:35
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Mar 15, 7:09 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:17 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2013 17:08, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 14/03/2013 08:02, Mrcheerful wrote:

Why does cycling make riders so aggressive?
Another assault that might not have happened if cycles had
registration numbers.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/21...ed_school_run_...

I wonder what the woman did to provoke the attack.
Whatever it was, I bet she wont do it again.

What?

People frequently do nothing repeatedly.

Try to put yourself in the victim's position. Attacked in front
of her children and other children - almost certainly permanently
changing her attitude towards cyclists.

and not in a good way.

Do you mean that?

I thought the meaning was clear. I will try to make it clearer just
for you:
Before this incident, the woman would have held an opinion about
cyclists, after the incident her opinion of cyclists will have
degraded.

Incidents such as this do not improve the image of any cyclist.

And that is "a good way" for you.

If it discourages her from threatening cyclists with her 4x4 in the
future, probably.

I couldn't personally give a **** whether it is due to fear, respect,
sympathy, or anything else for that matter.
The fact is that the police, cps and courts have failed over a
substantial period of time to properly enforce decent driving
standards, to the extent that motons now feel "entitled" to bully and
intimidate those using smaller vehicles than their own.
If a few of those motons need to be decked to change that attitude, so
be it. *Dinosaurs can't win in the end, and I have no sympathy
whatsoever with those who dish it out but can't take it.

You will find that it is the continual law breaking by the majority of
cyclists that has caused the lowering of regard for them by the public at
large.

Statistics? Source?
Whereas the continual annual slaughter of the public by motorists has
no effect on their regard.

Those horrible slaughtering motorists. Almost as bad as those horrible
slaughtering homes, which kill more people annually than
motorists...but which of course you don't have a silly ideological
prejudice against*.

If you think about how many millions of people drive each day, and how
many other road users they pass closely, and the speeds they do it at,
it's absolutely incredible how good they are at avoiding collisions.
The benefits that all those journeys provide MASSIVELY outweigh the
relatively very remote chance of having any kind of collision, let
alone a KSI. And anyone who actually thinks about it for a second will
be able to see that. Anyone, that is, who doesn't have a pre-existing
ideological prejudice against all motorists...

--
* Although maybe if you're such a trendy liberal then you should be
trying to encourage people to live outside, in the arms of Mother
Earth? You're probably the sort of person who thinks that would be
some kind of wonderful romanticised existence. So now that you want
people out of their homes like you want them out of their cars, you
can apply the same useless strategy as with cars, and try to con them
out of their homes by playing up how "dangerous" houses are. And once
again, people will just laugh at you and ignore your dogmatic and
dangerous "advice".

What is that expression that they use on here? Oh yes.

Get help.

On Mar 17, 3:24*pm, M Wicks wrote:
On Mar 17, 11:32*am, Squashme wrote:









On Mar 17, 9:10*am, Dave-Cyclists VORT
wrote:

On 16/03/2013 22:25, Phil W Lee wrote:

Squashme considered Fri, 15 Mar 2013 02:17:35
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Mar 15, 7:09 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:17 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2013 17:08, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 14/03/2013 08:02, Mrcheerful wrote:

Why does cycling make riders so aggressive?
Another assault that might not have happened if cycles had
registration numbers.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/21...ed_school_run_...

I wonder what the woman did to provoke the attack.
Whatever it was, I bet she wont do it again.

What?

People frequently do nothing repeatedly.

Try to put yourself in the victim's position. Attacked in front of
her children and other children - almost certainly permanently
changing her attitude towards cyclists.

and not in a good way.

Do you mean that?

I thought the meaning was clear. *I will try to make it clearer just for
you:
Before this incident, the woman would have held an opinion about cyclists,
after the incident her opinion of cyclists will have degraded.

Incidents such as this do not improve the image of any cyclist.

And that is "a good way" for you.

If it discourages her from threatening cyclists with her 4x4 in the
future, probably.

But we gave no evidence whatsoever to show that she did, or has ever,
dome that. Only your deluded little brain imagines that she might have.

Only your deluded little brain imagines that a cyclist MUST have
attacked her for no reason.

As others have alluded to, there was probably a reason...in the
cyclist's mind. But the cyclist being deranged enough to decide that
(e.g.) the very act of driving a hated 4x4 or overtaking within 10m is
justification for an attack does not make it so. Until and unless we
hear differently, there was no reason for the attack in terms of the
driver's actions, whatever feeble and delusional thought processes
went through the cyclist's mind beforehand.

You and the others are blatantly biaseed against all drivers in all
circumstances, as we've all seen a million times. Can you cite a
single post of yours where you unreservedly say that a collision
between a cyclist and a car was solely the cyclist's fault? Or do you
just think that the driver is always automatically at fault,

No.

On Mar 17, 3:38*pm, M Wicks wrote:
On Mar 14, 9:56*pm, (Roger Merriman) wrote:









JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2013 17:08, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 14/03/2013 08:02, Mrcheerful wrote:

Why does cycling make riders so aggressive?
Another assault that might not have happened if cycles had registration
numbers.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/21...ed_school_run_...
out_of_car

I wonder what the woman did to provoke the attack.
Whatever it was, I bet she wont do it again.

What?

People frequently do nothing repeatedly.

Try to put yourself in the victim's position. Attacked in front of her
children and other children - almost certainly permanently changing her
attitude towards cyclists.

quite, while I suspect there probably is also a back story, in all
probablity the driver was unaware of it.

in all probablity he probably is embarrised at loosing it quite so
badly.

Traitor. What happened to the pledge all "real cyclists" here made, to
never blame any fellow cyclist for anything even slightly? Do you
realise what you've done?

Just more evidence of what a mistake it was to allow your wife to
moderate URCM. I wouldn't be surprised if you were both fake cyclists
(but not for the same reasons as Squashme, of course).

What is that expression that they use on here? Oh yes.

Get help.

On Mar 17, 2:58*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 17/03/2013 11:28, Squashme wrote:









On Mar 17, 8:44 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Phil W Lee wrote:
Squashme considered Fri, 15 Mar 2013 02:17:35
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On Mar 15, 7:09 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:17 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 14/03/2013 17:08, Simon Weissel wrote:

On 14/03/2013 08:02, Mrcheerful wrote:

Why does cycling make riders so aggressive?
Another assault that might not have happened if cycles had
registration numbers.
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/21...ed_school_run_...

I wonder what the woman did to provoke the attack.
Whatever it was, I bet she wont do it again.

What?

People frequently do nothing repeatedly.

Try to put yourself in the victim's position. Attacked in front
of her children and other children - almost certainly permanently
changing her attitude towards cyclists.

and not in a good way.

Do you mean that?

I thought the meaning was clear. I will try to make it clearer just
for you:
Before this incident, the woman would have held an opinion about
cyclists, after the incident her opinion of cyclists will have
degraded.

Incidents such as this do not improve the image of any cyclist.

And that is "a good way" for you.

If it discourages her from threatening cyclists with her 4x4 in the
future, probably.

I couldn't personally give a **** whether it is due to fear, respect,
sympathy, or anything else for that matter.
The fact is that the police, cps and courts have failed over a
substantial period of time to properly enforce decent driving
standards, to the extent that motons now feel "entitled" to bully and
intimidate those using smaller vehicles than their own.
If a few of those motons need to be decked to change that attitude, so
be it. *Dinosaurs can't win in the end, and I have no sympathy
whatsoever with those who dish it out but can't take it.

You will find that it is the continual law breaking by the majority of
cyclists that has caused the lowering of regard for them by the public at
large.

Statistics? Source?
Whereas the continual annual slaughter of the public by motorists has
no effect on their regard.

Whatever the situation there is no excuse for personal violence,

Don't be silly. You know that is not true.

It certainly is the case in law.

I thought that one could use reasonable force in self-defence in
certain cases? Is that not excusable "personal violence"?