Near Miss of the Day 260: Driver cuts up cyclist then confronts him (now with video)

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Treat me with respect, and I shall do likewise.  Treat me like your punchbag and you're in for a sore face.  

(unless you're bigger than me, in which case I'll get the sore face, but if necessary, I'll die defending myself)

It's useful to know where to hit someone, punching someone in the head isn't the best idea... and can kill (which I think could be argued to not be reasonable).
The chest is a good target and the throat is likely to stop someone from further assaulting you.

dassie wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

...

The test on 'reasonableness' where force has been used and the accused invokes the right to self defence, is subjective, and will be based on what you honestly believed to be the case at the time of the incident

...

My favourite quote is from Palmer: 'it is good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary'. 

 

Thanks for the clarification.

I naturally try and avoid confrontations, and 'leg it' first if possible, when things look nasty, 'works' for me...  Fortunately not been in this situation.

I'd just add here that if the shit hits the fan and you defend yourself, you're probably going to find yourself in front of one of the stupid Tory fucks called 'a magistrate'.  Magistrates are accompanied by a trained legal advisor, but they are still almost hardwired to believe everything that plod tells them.  And as Tory filth (yes, I know .. is there any other kind of Tory?), they are almost genetically predisposed to hate cyclists.  So expect a guilty verdict at first instance.   But once you appeal, and you get before an actual judge who has a good chance of having an IQ over 85 (unlike most of the magistrates I've met), then you can expect a different result.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

dassie wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

...

The test on 'reasonableness' where force has been used and the accused invokes the right to self defence, is subjective, and will be based on what you honestly believed to be the case at the time of the incident

...

My favourite quote is from Palmer: 'it is good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary'. 

 

Thanks for the clarification.

I naturally try and avoid confrontations, and 'leg it' first if possible, when things look nasty, 'works' for me...  Fortunately not been in this situation.

I'd just add here that if the shit hits the fan and you defend yourself, you're probably going to find yourself in front of one of the stupid Tory fucks called 'a magistrate'.  Magistrates are accompanied by a trained legal advisor, but they are still almost hardwired to believe everything that plod tells them.  And as Tory filth (yes, I know .. is there any other kind of Tory?), they are almost genetically predisposed to hate cyclists.  So expect a guilty verdict at first instance.   But once you appeal, and you get before an actual judge who has a good chance of having an IQ over 85 (unlike most of the magistrates I've met), then you can expect a different result.  

Didn't we already have that Walter Mitty remake with Ben Stiller? This garbage is probably funnier though.

Love you to drop in Harehills and see how long you lasted if you started on with militant, cycling-hardman act.

Good to see you admit you're not Jason Bourne though as I don't remember him throwing concrete slabs onto drivers. This is probably more your level

Rick_Rude wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

dassie wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

...

The test on 'reasonableness' where force has been used and the accused invokes the right to self defence, is subjective, and will be based on what you honestly believed to be the case at the time of the incident

...

My favourite quote is from Palmer: 'it is good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but only do, what is reasonably necessary'. 

 

Thanks for the clarification.

I naturally try and avoid confrontations, and 'leg it' first if possible, when things look nasty, 'works' for me...  Fortunately not been in this situation.

I'd just add here that if the shit hits the fan and you defend yourself, you're probably going to find yourself in front of one of the stupid Tory fucks called 'a magistrate'.  Magistrates are accompanied by a trained legal advisor, but they are still almost hardwired to believe everything that plod tells them.  And as Tory filth (yes, I know .. is there any other kind of Tory?), they are almost genetically predisposed to hate cyclists.  So expect a guilty verdict at first instance.   But once you appeal, and you get before an actual judge who has a good chance of having an IQ over 85 (unlike most of the magistrates I've met), then you can expect a different result.  

Didn't we already have that Walter Mitty remake with Ben Stiller? This garbage is probably funnier though.

Love you to drop in Harehills and see how long you lasted if you started on with militant, cycling-hardman act.

Good to see you admit you're not Jason Bourne though as I don't remember him throwing concrete slabs onto drivers. This is probably more your level

Sorry, I missed this.   I'm sorry you felt threatened by my comments.  There, there.  

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

I would not advocate that, faced with a 5'' woman who gets out of her car, you respond with a D-lock to the face followed by multiple stab wounds. 

Agreed, if a 5" person of any sex confronts you, just pop your empty water bottle over them until they calm down and then release them. Don't be tempted to throw their tiny car over a hedge.

MonkeyPuzzle wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

I would not advocate that, faced with a 5'' woman who gets out of her car, you respond with a D-lock to the face followed by multiple stab wounds. 

Agreed, if a 5" person of any sex confronts you, just pop your empty water bottle over them until they calm down and then release them. Don't be tempted to throw their tiny car over a hedge.

"I do not, for one, think that the problem was that the band was down. I think that the problem may have been, that there was a Stonehenge monument on the stage that was in danger of being crushed by a dwarf. Alright? That tended to understate the hugeness of the object." - David St. Hubbins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR7vpgFRuXo

fukawitribe wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

A driver gets out of his car following a 'near miss' or an altercation, you have to assume that he is going to hit you. 

You do not need to wait until he does so, before defending yourself.  

I believe that's known as "getting your retaliation in first".

or the Steven Gerrard defence

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

A driver gets out of his car following a 'near miss' or an altercation, you have to assume that he is going to hit you. 

You do not need to wait until he does so, before defending yourself.  

By law this is very true.

Ive just come out of a job where i constantly had to deal with a lot of drunk and disorderly people. 

One evening one got up real close to me and made cut throat gestures and threats about attacking me. 

He attempted to attack me 3 times and each and every time i ejected him from the premesis but he kept coming back. 

He carried on harrassing people on the street and the police were called. When he was eventually arrested and taken away i was approached by an police officer to take a statement he asked me why I didnt just deck him/give him a wallop when I was the suspects focus of attention.

I stated that I didnt know if i was allowed to and I also didnt want to lose my job for 'attacking' someone, even in self defence unless it was a serious case of life or death.

The cop told me that I could have knocked the guy out in self defence and the law wouldnt of touched me because I had already thrown him out 3 times and his behavior was irratic.

Bottom line is, if its clear that a confrontation is unavoidable and you fear that youre going to be attacked. you can throw the first punch or make the first move. Shove the attacker away and try to get away from him to desecalate the situation - This even more so if the attackers behavior is irratic which can be an effect of acohol or drugs.

Just lay him out.... if he's got a knife though then of course you can grab whatever you have near to you and tenderise the attacker in self defence but only till he is no longer a threat. Its not a WWF wrestling match. When the attacker is down, thats when you call or wait for the police.

burtthebike wrote:

Talking about knob of the day, if that term could be applied to a woman, the interviewer on You and Yours on R4 today might well qualify.

".....and cyclists die all the time."  Not a shred of concern or interest about why they die.

"....but we've seen loads of examples of cyclists just flagrantly ignoring the law.  You'll accept that won't you?"

"Should cyclists have to take a test to go on the road?"

The BC spokesman, Nick Chamberlain, did his best, but the utter bias of the BBC towards cycling is demonstrated yet again.

Oh, and she said that Bernie Shrosbree had been found guilty of assault, which isn't true.

Starts at 20:41.  I'd complain, but to be honest, if all the complaints I've made to the BBC with overwhelming evidence can be dismissed, what's the point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0002r0c

There's some sort of weekly feedback programme on R4 - see if emailing them gets you anywhere. TBH I stopped at the clips of knuckle draggers should "f**king this F**king that, I'll kill you, get out of the lane" - don't need that sort of negativity in my life. 

Look555 wrote:

There's some sort of weekly feedback programme on R4  

Its called Feedback: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1WbP92b6YbpP9j4mwwbtc9Q/contac...

Look555 wrote:

Look555 wrote:

There's some sort of weekly feedback programme on R4  

Its called Feedback: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1WbP92b6YbpP9j4mwwbtc9Q/contac...

Thanks, I've bunged them an email asking when they are going to have a prog which even mentions the overwhelming benefits of cycling, as demonstrated by the mass of evidence of the past thirty years, rather than their continual cycle bashing.

burtthebike wrote:

Look555 wrote:

Look555 wrote:

There's some sort of weekly feedback programme on R4  

Its called Feedback: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1WbP92b6YbpP9j4mwwbtc9Q/contac...

Thanks, I've bunged them an email asking when they are going to have a prog which even mentions the overwhelming benefits of cycling, as demonstrated by the mass of evidence of the past thirty years, rather than their continual cycle bashing.

'When Geordie Greig tells us to'.  

There.  I saved them the trouble.  

burtthebike wrote:

Look555 wrote:

Look555 wrote:

There's some sort of weekly feedback programme on R4  

Its called Feedback: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1WbP92b6YbpP9j4mwwbtc9Q/contac...

Thanks, I've bunged them an email asking when they are going to have a prog which even mentions the overwhelming benefits of cycling, as demonstrated by the mass of evidence of the past thirty years, rather than their continual cycle bashing.

Listened to the segment, it was horrendous. Just trying to enrage everyone. Sent an email for them to ignore, as they do with other evidence. Told them to speak to a Mr Vine who I believe works for them.

burtthebike wrote:

Talking about knob of the day, if that term could be applied to a woman, the interviewer on You and Yours on R4 today might well qualify.

".....and cyclists die all the time."  Not a shred of concern or interest about why they die.

"....but we've seen loads of examples of cyclists just flagrantly ignoring the law.  You'll accept that won't you?"

"Should cyclists have to take a test to go on the road?"

The BC spokesman, Nick Chamberlain, did his best, but the utter bias of the BBC towards cycling is demonstrated yet again.

Oh, and she said that Bernie Shrosbree had been found guilty of assault, which isn't true.

Starts at 20:41.  I'd complain, but to be honest, if all the complaints I've made to the BBC with overwhelming evidence can be dismissed, what's the point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0002r0c

I've listened to this on iPlayer and it is shockingly anti-cylist bias from the presenter.   I have submitted a complaint to the BBC

rcbroughton wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Talking about knob of the day, if that term could be applied to a woman, the interviewer on You and Yours on R4 today might well qualify.

".....and cyclists die all the time."  Not a shred of concern or interest about why they die.

"....but we've seen loads of examples of cyclists just flagrantly ignoring the law.  You'll accept that won't you?"

"Should cyclists have to take a test to go on the road?"

The BC spokesman, Nick Chamberlain, did his best, but the utter bias of the BBC towards cycling is demonstrated yet again.

Oh, and she said that Bernie Shrosbree had been found guilty of assault, which isn't true.

Starts at 20:41.  I'd complain, but to be honest, if all the complaints I've made to the BBC with overwhelming evidence can be dismissed, what's the point.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0002r0c

I've listened to this on iPlayer and it is shockingly anti-cylist bias from the presenter.   I have submitted a complaint to the BBC

DId you do so via actual paper letter?  That'll let them save a bit on bogroll.  

burtthebike wrote:

BBC spokesman, Nick Chamberlain, did his best, but the utter bias of the BBC towards cycling is demonstrated yet again.

For extra shits and giggles, head over to the Daily Mail and look for any article on the BBC, and laugh as you read the dribbling retards' comments about how 'the BBC is leftie'. 

That degree of stupidity should be rights earn you a cancellation of your right to vote, but hey.. this is Britain.  

brooksby wrote:

Its a nice frame shot at the head of the story, but it doesn't really give us much information  Please can we have a link to the video?

'kin 'ell… yes, it's in the story now. Finally. Sorry about that