More details have emerged of the background to an incident in Melbourne, Australia in which the driver of an SUV deliberately rammed a cyclist off the road – although it appears the full story remains untold
The footage, shot in December last year, went viral this week when it was published online by campaign group the Australian Cycle Alliance, with the story picked up by press outlets around the world.
> Video: Melbourne driver swerves into cyclist and rams him off the road
Now, Daily Mail Australia reports that the cyclist involved, 29-year-old Jack McDonnell, had keyed Michael Giarrusso’s Nissan Patrol shortly beforehand.
At Melbourne Magistrates’ Court in August, McDonnell admitted criminal damage with intent to damage or destroy. He was put in a programme for first-time offender as part of which he wrote a letter apologising to the motorist.
Giarrusso, aged 27 and with previous convictions for unspecified offences, was subsequently fined A$1,000 (£533) for recklessly causing injury as a result of his retaliation.
Police meanwhile are said to be investigating a post to a Facebook group earlier this week in which McDonnell allegedly posted details of Giarrusso’s name, home address and phone number, which has since been disconnected.
While the latest revelations throw some light on why Giarrusso was so enraged that he felt compelled to use his vehicle to knock McDonnell off his bike – which he then threw over a fence – it leaves another question unanswered, namely what happened beforehand to make the cyclist take a key to the car in the first place?
Edward Hore, president of the Australian Cycle Alliance, told Daily Mail Australia: “Nothing can excuse the recklessness of the driver. Nothing justifies the attack and the brutality.”
23 thoughts on “More details emerge of Australian road rage attack – but raise another question”
Edward Hore, president of the
Not true. Apparently “keying my car” is a complete justification for running someone off the road in such a way as is likely to cause them harm or even death…
(the Australian courts have shown it to be so).
brooksby wrote:
Have they really, if they had convicted the cyclist and not the driver then that’s what the courts would be saying. However they have convicted both for thier indiviual actions.
They have accepted that the car keying may explain the actions of the driver, but they have not excused him for those actions.
I would like to know what happen to enrage the cyclist to the point where he keyed the car, seems amazing that he was then as calm as he appeared to be when cycling at the start of the published video
EK Spinner wrote:
$1000 fine for behaviour like that? Seems to me like keying the car was used as a major, major mitigating circumstance?
As ever, without knowing the
As ever, without knowing the full story, it’s difficult to know what to think. What we do know is that the cyclist had deliberately damaged the drivers property. That doesn’t excuse what happened, but it does explain it to an extent.
vonhelmet wrote:
I’d say it doesn’t go anywhere near explaining it. It’s just a fucking car and just a little scratchypoo.
How can running someone of the road be supported because of damage to property?
don simon wrote:
I said it explains it to an extent. I said it doesn’t excuse it. The two are very different. It can’t be supported, no, but the chain of events is clear and comprehensible. It’s an overreaction, but one that’s a whole lot more understandable than just running someone off the road, as the story was originally presented.
Equally, the cyclist’s decision to scratch the car because of whatever unknown event may be explainable, but it is equally inexcusable. What excuse is there for wantonly damaging someone else’s property?
vonhelmet wrote:
Actually they’re not that different.
vonhelmet wrote:
Well, the driver’s complete lack of concern at knocking off a cyclist has already been demonstrated once, so it is entirely possible he’d already tried to do it before, and if someone had tried to knock me off, I would be very tempted and feel completely justified in scratching the object they had used to threaten my life. And they should think themselves lucky if that was all I did.
If you love your car more than you value someone’s life, you need help. As the Dalai Lama summed it up so superbly “Things were made to be used and people to be loved. The whole problem with the world is that things are loved and people are used.”
[/quote]
[/quote]
I’d say it doesn’t go anywhere near explaining it. It’s just a fucking car and just a little scratchypoo.
How can running someone of the road be supported because of damage to property?
[/quote]
One wonders how you would feel if someone put a brick through your house window, damaged your bike, or even scratched your body. It’s just glass, it’s just a bike, you’ll heal…….!
Regardless of what the arsehole driver did or didn’t do there is no excuse for retaliation damage, certainly no excuse for the driver to retaliate they way he did. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Yorkshie Whippet wrote:
Point well missed!
don simon wrote:
I’d say you rather missed the point in saying “it’s just a fucking car and a little scratchypoo”. I do not condone the drivers actions at all, putting someone life at risk, but also you are minimising the consequences of criminal damage. It is a crime for a reason. A metal deep scratch across multiple panels could cost thousands, or even in to five figures if the whole car has to be re-sprayed. Perhaps you are wealthy enough not to worry about such things, but for most people having to pay out a lot of money, even if it is just insurance excess and lost no claims, to fix damage caused by someone else is not trivial and trivialising the criminal actions of the cyclist helps no one. Both committed serious offences and were both dealt with appropriately.
John Smith wrote:
Seriously?
I guess I am wealthy, but not necessarily financially, as seems to be the current understanding of wealthy. If a scratch on your vehicle causes you so much distress and hardship that you feel you have to physically attack the perp. I suggest you can’t really afford it.
Wanton vandalism is, of course, unacceptable, but attacking another human being for something so trivial is way up there.Too much is put on easily replaceable material goods and your support of the driver is unforgivable.
Just for info, I do have some quality products, I look after them and I use them. I am not precious about them and have not over extended myself in order to buy them, therefore if I need to replace damaged goods, I can. But at the end of the day, they are only things.
John Smith wrote:
What we ‘know’ seems to be that the cyclist scratched the car and the driver knocked him off. Do you know why the cyclist scratched the car?
Besides, how is a £533 fine for driving a car into someone, ‘appropriate’?
davel wrote:
How is not paying for the car to be repaired appropiate too? I would want my bike repaired if someone broke it
Mb747 wrote:
I’d suggest that in scenario one, a paultry fine has been issued when the illegal action could, and only through good fortune didn’t, have seriously injured / killed someone. It was an assault.
In scenario two, someone’s property was damaged, which will have caused frustration and upset. No one is going to die from a scratched side panel.
As mentioned previously, the costs to repair the paint work could easily cost more than the £533 fine issued… is there anyway, in your mind that you beleive it right and fair that of the two actions, the cyclist should be paying a heavier price?
Hmmm, I’ve had property
Hmmm, I’ve had property damaged before without trying to kill people…
Surely the reverse is that if you’re knocked off your bike by a motorist then you can shoot them?
It seems likely that the
It seems likely that the cyclist had been on the receiving end of some very bad driving, and given the complete disregard for life and limb demonstrated by the driver, this seems only too likely. As others have pointed out, that the cyclist wasn’t aware of the vehicle he had probably just keyed, or wasn’t concerned by its proximity, is baffling. If I’d just keyed a car, no matter what the provocation, I’d have made myself very scarce indeed.
No matter what the provocation of the driver by the keying, it cannot excuse his deliberate attack on a defenceless person; nobody’s car is worth a life*. And besides, he’s an accountant.
*But if anyone touches my bike, they’re toast.
And then they might feel that
And then they might feel that it was perfectly reasonable to run you off the road and throw your bike into a hedge, and that you should count yourself lucky that’s all they did.
Are we seeing how this works yet?
vonhelmet wrote:
I think so.
If a situation occurs with someone who’s exhibiting signs of being overly protective of a bit of heavy machinery, the best course of action is to strike, pre-emptively and repeatedly, until they’re incapable of attacking you with it.
That’s where you’re going, yes?
davel wrote:
The bit I don’t get is why would you use the same said property that was damaged by another person as the weapon, therefore risking more damage.
I wouldn’t smash you over the head with my favourite Picasso because you’d got too close to it, or indeed damaged it slightly. I might let the dogs out though…
I’ve been thinking about this
I’ve been thinking about this… If the cyclist keyed the SUV, and then Mr Psycho SUV Driver comes along and runs the cyclist off the road in revenge… Does that mean the cyclist keyed the SUV whilst in motion or stopped at the lights earlier in the very same journey? Seems odd to commit wanton vandalism (whether or not he felt it justified) and to then carry on riding along the same main road as your “victim”. Me: I’d be off down as many side roads and alleys as I could find!
I think that the point here
I think that the point here is that the two offences need to be looked at seperately.
It is not a mathamatical equation where one thing cancels the other out, both were wrong and both were dealt with in court.
‘Equally, the cyclist’s
As countless stories on here attest, we have our lives endangered by people driving stupidly/ aggressively dangerously with a terrible frequency. If we go to the police, even with video recordings of incidents, they all too often do nothing. When one of the these incidents results in a death, the courts handle it with a leniency that would cause outrage had a different weapon been chosen. In this context, does this excuse individuals taking retribution (recognising that in this case we don’t yet know whether this term applies)? No, but it goes a long way to explaining it! I don’t think we should engage with a debate around condemning it because it is the wrong argument. Driving dangerously is normal and socially acceptable. Once someone has agreed that it’s not okay to drive above the speed limit /use a mobile when you’re driving/ pass cyclists too close/ fail to give way to pedestrians… then and only then will I enter into a discussion with them about the morals of keying a car.