Skinny runt cyclist attacks woman driver in Surrey

On Mar 17, 5:15*pm, Squashme wrote:
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.

Oh I SEE! That's psycholist-code for "You're right and I resent it". I
suppose you find yourself having to admit that so often that you might
as well come up with "fun" new ways of saying it. Anything's better
than "looking weak" by revising your opinions to reflect reality,
after all.

Not sure whether your ISP will like you posting the same thing again
and again though. Think I'll manually skip your posts myself if it
continues. If you can't come up with anything original and relevant
then it's better to say nothing. I know you resent me and others when
we hit the nail on the head about your actual intentions and the
weakness of your arguments, and you've got absolutely nothing left in
the tank to respond, but you don't have to make it quite so obvious.
Just slink away quietly with as much dignity as a "trendy" liberal in
his 80s can muster.

On 17/03/2013 17:27, Squashme wrote:
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"?

Self-defence does not cover an attack on another person.

On Mar 17, 5:16*pm, Squashme wrote:
On Mar 17, 3:24*pm, M Wicks wrote:

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.

So where are all the posts where you have 100% blamed the cyclist in a
bicycle/car collision? If you can cite just one genuine example of
such a post, where you have explicitly said that the cyclist was
completely at fault, then you'll have proved me wrong about something!
But if you can't, it rather suggests that you always automatically
assign at least some blame to the driver in a car/bicycle collision,
simply for being the driver, before you go anywhere near the actual
facts of the incident.

Which I suppose is only following through on your general anti-car
attitude (which several reasonable posters on here have now noted well
away from any posts by me, so you can't pretend it's "just something I
say").

On Mar 17, 6:05*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 17/03/2013 17:27, Squashme wrote:









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"?

Self-defence does not cover an attack on another person.

How would you defend yourself without attacking the other person?
Legal argument?

On Mar 17, 5:16*pm, Squashme wrote:
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?

The car-haters? I think it's "I cycle". Some of them do of course. But
some, Squashme, don't.

Those people think saying "I cycle" will give them a veneer of
respectability (bullies like to pretend, for PR purposes, that they're
trying to increase their own freedoms when really they're trying to
limit others'). But sadly, this approach doesn't throw anyone off the
scent, though it does acquire them a whole load of new enemies in the
form of those who dislike cyclists!

D'oh...an own goal there. And anyone less arrogant than a car-hating
fake cyclist would admit that and drop the "I cycle" pretence. But
that, of course, would be "weak"...

(Sorry. I'm sure you actually do cycle. It's just that when the only
aspect of cycling that you *ever* talk about is how dangerous drivers
supposedly are, then it can be a bit "misleading"...)

On Mar 17, 6:29*pm, Squashme wrote:
On Mar 17, 6:05*pm, JNugent wrote:









On 17/03/2013 17:27, Squashme wrote:

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"?

Self-defence does not cover an attack on another person.

How would you defend yourself without attacking the other person?

Restrain them (if you're strong enough).

Legal argument?

I believe Phil Lee is a source of fine legal arguments. Better ask him
rather than JNugent, because compared to JNugent, he may not, you
know, technically be correct, but he's much more likely to say what a
(sub-)psycholist wants to hear.

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:34:24 +0000, Dave-Cyclists VORT wrote:


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

I am really glad to be labelled a non-right minded person by the
vorarephilic dave.

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

My silly Victorian diversion is extremely convenient, viable, enjoyable
and healthy. I love it when the vorarephilic dave calls it a silly
Victorian diversion.

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:34:54 +0000, Dave-Cyclists VORT wrote:

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

Twice a year.

On 17/03/2013 18:29, Squashme wrote:
On Mar 17, 6:05 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 17/03/2013 17:27, Squashme wrote:









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"?

Self-defence does not cover an attack on another person.

How would you defend yourself without attacking the other person?
Legal argument?

Attack and self-defence are mutually-incompatible concepts.

"Squashme" wrote in message
...

On Mar 17, 6:05 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 17/03/2013 17:27, Squashme wrote:









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"?

Self-defence does not cover an attack on another person.

How would you defend yourself without attacking the other person?
Legal argument?

Bless him. he doesn't understand the difference between "attack" and
"defend".
We should be making allowances for his total lack of understanding, and
explain these things in idiot proof terms.