Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Bristol bus driver 'used vehicle as a weapon' to ram cyclist off road.

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    n97 mini
    Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    monument wrote: »
    If you don't like the idea of someone banging on the side of your car you should not try to run people over because actions have consequences!
    Imaginations at work again. Bad driving, yes. Attempting to run down cyclists, no.

    And similarly if you don't want motorists shouting in your face don't thump their cars.


  • Options
    #153
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Imaginations at work again. Bad driving, yes. Attempting to run down cyclists, no.

    And similarly if you don't want motorists shouting in your face don't thump their cars.

    As I said it the next sentence: "And if a motorist tries -- inadvertently or not -- to kill a cyclist then your "actions have consequences" logic comes into play on a larger scale and the motorist might get hurt. Will you be defending the cyclist after that happens?"

    Wow! You really don't care about human life, do you? :confused:

    Off camera he "thumped" (in your words) or "slapped" (in the cyclist's word) or "touched" (in the motorist's word) the car for one very good reason -- to warn the motorist he was about to knock him down and possablly be crushed by the car!

    The driver did not only shout at the cyclist, he also assaulted the cyclist by (a) his threatening behaviour and (b) touching his person (touching something attached to him is the same thing in law).

    And how does you logic end at the cyclist? If the motorist did not nearly knock the cyclist down his car would have never been touched. You see all wrongs by cyclists as major things while you then underplay everything a motorist does. Can you see cyclists are humans and touching a car is unimportant when somebody is about to get hit by said car?


  • Options
    #154
    n97 mini
    Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    monument wrote: »
    The driver did not only shout at the cyclist, he also assaulted the cyclist by (a) his threatening behaviour and (b) touching his person (touching something attached to him is the same thing in law).
    So how do you think he should have reacted to someone slapping his car?
    monument wrote: »
    You see all wrongs by cyclists as major things
    That's not really true. Unlike others I actually see the wrongs done by drivers and by cyclists, and I'm prepared to call a spade a spade.


  • Options
    #155
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    n97 mini wrote: »
    So how do you think he should have reacted to someone slapping his car?

    Not knocking them down might be a good start!

    How do you think somebody should react when they are close to being knocked down?

    n97 mini wrote: »
    That's not really true. Unlike others I actually see the wrongs done by drivers and by cyclists, and I'm prepared to call a spade a spade.

    No, you're obsessed with tiny wrongs by the cyclists when in the two main examples on the thread are of motorists putting human life in danger and are committing assault.

    You're not fooling anybody, expect maybe your self.


  • Options
    #156
    doozerie
    Registered Users Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    n97 mini wrote:
    Eh, you're confusing me with someone else. I pointed out that both parties were in the wrong. Including the cyclists, persecution complex and all.

    It seems to me that you really don't know what you are arguing for/about. You've flailed about grasping at various arbitrary idea/arguments and tried unsuccessfully to defend any of them.

    I can tell you what your posts convey though , they suggest that you hold no sympathy for the victims of assault that have been discussed throughout this thread. You try to impose a thin veneer of social conscience and respectability by stating that the assailants were wrong, but you can't help but also state your true feeling which is that the victims were somehow responsible for the actions of the assailants. You seem to think that defending the actions of sociopaths from a distance can be done without raising questions about your own sense of, or lack of, social responsibility which is very optimistic of you. You probably also like to believe that you yourself will never be a victim of assault, since you'd never do anything which another person could possibly construe as being offensive, which is even more impressively optimistic - by definition sociopaths, as well as being unpredictable generally, are not loyal to anyone, not even those who side with them.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement