Originally Posted by n97 mini
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?
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?