From: Big Les Wade on
Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> posted
>It is becoming increasingly clear here that motorists believe the
>deliberate use of a car as a physical weapon is sometimes justified.

In this case, I have a great deal of sympathy for the motorist. The
cyclist deliberately broke the law in order to further his own interests
at the expense of others. He was lucky not have got his lights firmly
punched out.

>Which, of course, explains a lot about the average motorist's mindset.

I'm not an average motorist - I cycle and walk far more than I drive -
but I can recognise stupidity and selfishness when I see it, whether
exercised by motorists or cyclists.

--
Les
Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
From: Toom Tabard on
On 2 Mar, 09:06, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
> On 2 Mar, 08:43, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 Mar, 06:35, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
>
> > > It happens all over the world and seems to be tolerated by police
> > > despite the deliberate intent. Is there an unspoken special
> > > dispensation for drivers against cyclists?
>
> > > "...Friday evening, they corked the intersection of Peachtree St. and
> > > Eighth. One motorist strongly took exception.
> > > "You can't go through a red light if you're a vehicle," the motorist
> > > is heard saying on a YouTube video.
>
> > > The video, shot by cyclist Matt Todd, shows the driver threatening to
> > > strike a bicyclist with his car.
>
> > > "If you don't move, I'll run you over," he said just a few seconds
> > > before putting the car in gear, lightly striking a bicyclist..."
>
> > > More with videos:http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=141270&catid=3
>
> > If you unlawfully and without good cause block someone's right to free
> > passage, then they can use reasonable force to proceed (deciding to
> > hold your own procession and block people to let your mates pass is
> > unlikely to constitute good cause).
>
> Source?
>
> > If you further provoke by continuing to block free passage then that
> > would be regarded as mitigating circumstances in defence of anyone
> > assaulting you.
> > It is not an issue of drivers-v-cyclists pers se. Try (with or without
> > your bike) blocking a pedestrian on the pavement and refusing to let
> > him pass. Don't be surprised if he tries to push past. Try continuing
> > to block him. Don't be surprised if you end up with a fat lip. And, if
> > you've videoed the whole thing, don't be surprised if a court finds
> > you are entirely the author of your own misfortune.
>
> What is likely to happen and what can happen legally are not the same.
> Also I have no doubt that such a jury would consist of a majority of
> motorists.
>

Many adults drive, and would be proportionately on a jury. That is not
their only classification. I drive/walk/cycle. As a driver and
pedestrian, I try to give extra consideration to cyclists and their
safety. If I were on a jury in a road accident case, I'd be giving
full and fair consideration to the case for any cyclist. In an
obstruction and assault scenario, whether I'm a driver/pedestrian/
cyclist is irrelevant. Only the fairness and justice matters, and I
would not favour the case for the cyclist in the example you've given.
Similarly, in the second scenario I've given - blocking a pedestrian -
it could equally be said that the jury would consist of a majority of
pedestrians. That is equally irrelevant to the consideration of the
issues in terms of right and justice.

In the real world, morally, legally and in terms of natural justice,
you are backing a loser.

Toom

From: Doug on
On 2 Mar, 09:34, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2 Mar, 09:06, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2 Mar, 08:43, Toom Tabard <t...(a)tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 2 Mar, 06:35, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
>
> > > > It happens all over the world and seems to be tolerated by police
> > > > despite the deliberate intent. Is there an unspoken special
> > > > dispensation for drivers against cyclists?
>
> > > > "...Friday evening, they corked the intersection of Peachtree St. and
> > > > Eighth. One motorist strongly took exception.
> > > > "You can't go through a red light if you're a vehicle," the motorist
> > > > is heard saying on a YouTube video.
>
> > > > The video, shot by cyclist Matt Todd, shows the driver threatening to
> > > > strike a bicyclist with his car.
>
> > > > "If you don't move, I'll run you over," he said just a few seconds
> > > > before putting the car in gear, lightly striking a bicyclist..."
>
> > > > More with videos:http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=141270&catid=3
>
> > > If you unlawfully and without good cause block someone's right to free
> > > passage, then they can use reasonable force to proceed (deciding to
> > > hold your own procession and block people to let your mates pass is
> > > unlikely to constitute good cause).
>
> > Source?
>
> > > If you further provoke by continuing to block free passage then that
> > > would be regarded as mitigating circumstances in defence of anyone
> > > assaulting you.
> > > It is not an issue of drivers-v-cyclists pers se. Try (with or without
> > > your bike) blocking a pedestrian on the pavement and refusing to let
> > > him pass. Don't be surprised if he tries to push past. Try continuing
> > > to block him. Don't be surprised if you end up with a fat lip. And, if
> > > you've videoed the whole thing, don't be surprised if a court finds
> > > you are entirely the author of your own misfortune.
>
> > What is likely to happen and what can happen legally are not the same.
> > Also I have no doubt that such a jury would consist of a majority of
> > motorists.
>
> Many adults drive, and would be proportionately on a jury. That is not
> their only classification. I drive/walk/cycle. As a driver and
> pedestrian, I  try to give extra consideration to cyclists and their
> safety. If I were on a jury in a road accident case, I'd be giving
> full and fair consideration to the case for any cyclist. In an
> obstruction and assault scenario, whether I'm a driver/pedestrian/
> cyclist is irrelevant. Only the fairness and justice matters, and I
> would not favour the case for the cyclist in the example you've given.
> Similarly, in the second scenario I've given - blocking a pedestrian -
> it could equally be said that the jury would consist of a majority of
> pedestrians. That is equally irrelevant to the consideration of the
> issues in terms of right and justice.
>
> In the real world, morally, legally and in terms of natural justice,
> you are backing a loser.
>
I am still waiting to see where your assertion is enshrined in law
about someone's 'right to a free passage' entitles them to the violent
use of a weapon.

Doug.

From: smurf on
Doug wrote:
> It happens all over the world and seems to be tolerated by police
> despite the deliberate intent. Is there an unspoken special
> dispensation for drivers against cyclists?
>
> "...Friday evening, they corked the intersection of Peachtree St. and
> Eighth. One motorist strongly took exception.
> "You can't go through a red light if you're a vehicle," the motorist
> is heard saying on a YouTube video.
>

Shame he slowed down at all.


From: FrengaX on
On Mar 2, 8:26 am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
> On 2 Mar, 07:59, ffor...(a)smythe.com (The Revd) wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:35:11 -0800 (PST), Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >It happens all over the world and seems to be tolerated by police
> > >despite the deliberate intent. Is there an unspoken special
> > >dispensation for drivers against cyclists?
>
> > There ought to be.
>
> > >"...Friday evening, they corked the intersection of Peachtree St. and
> > >Eighth. One motorist strongly took exception.
> > >"You can't go through a red light if you're a vehicle," the motorist
> > >is heard saying on a YouTube video.
>
> > >The video, shot by cyclist Matt Todd, shows the driver threatening to
> > >strike a bicyclist with his car.
>
> > >"If you don't move, I'll run you over," he said just a few seconds
> > >before putting the car in gear, lightly striking a bicyclist..."
>
> > Lightly?  Too lightly, it seems.
>
> It is becoming increasingly clear here that motorists believe the
> deliberate use of a car as a physical weapon is sometimes justified.
> Which, of course, explains a lot about the average motorist's mindset.

It obviously hasn't occurred to you that your deliverately provocative
and agressive starts to your threads (which seem to be the majority of
threads here - strange) will result in equally provacative and
antagonistic responses, even if they're not actually meant seriously.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: Polish Bus Drivers
Next: The motorway