Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
No chance in Cambridge
78 views
Skip to first unread message
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Feb 17, 2012, 9:39:39 AM2/17/12
to
Mike Clark
Feb 17, 2012, 9:55:56 AM2/17/12
to
In message <jhlorb$ai9$1...@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk>
Funnily enough, yesterday evening, my wife had just related a story
whereby earlier in the day she had witnessed a Cambridge bus driver
deliberately move across and force two cyclists sideways out of the
lane, he'd also shouted something at them. My wife latter caught up with
the cyclists and asked them what had happened. Apparently the bus driver
was angry at being held up and had decided to force his way through!
I then showed my wife the video from Bristol. The local example
recounted above may not have been as extreme as the Bristol video, but
it's demonstrating a similar mentality of using the brute force of a
bus against the fragility of a person on a bicycle.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/
whereby earlier in the day she had witnessed a Cambridge bus driver
deliberately move across and force two cyclists sideways out of the
lane, he'd also shouted something at them. My wife latter caught up with
the cyclists and asked them what had happened. Apparently the bus driver
was angry at being held up and had decided to force his way through!
I then showed my wife the video from Bristol. The local example
recounted above may not have been as extreme as the Bristol video, but
it's demonstrating a similar mentality of using the brute force of a
bus against the fragility of a person on a bicycle.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user" http://www.antibody.me.uk/
Roland Perry
Feb 17, 2012, 9:55:06 AM2/17/12
to
In message <jhlorb$ai9$1...@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk>, at 14:39:39 on Fri, 17
Feb 2012, nm...@cam.ac.uk remarked:
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17066798
Neither side comes out of this incident smelling of roses. The cyclist
picked a fight (by propping his bike against the front of the bus and
having a go at the driver).
--
Roland Perry
Feb 2012, nm...@cam.ac.uk remarked:
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17066798
Neither side comes out of this incident smelling of roses. The cyclist
picked a fight (by propping his bike against the front of the bus and
having a go at the driver).
--
Roland Perry
Naich
Feb 17, 2012, 10:29:35 AM2/17/12
to
Naich.
--
http://naich.net ..... My rubbish blog
http://asshol.es ..... Stupidity in pictures
http://sodwork.com ... A waste of time
Motto: What is a "free" gift ? Aren't all gifts free?
Roland Perry
Feb 17, 2012, 10:39:39 AM2/17/12
to
In message <jhlrov$l20$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:29:35 on Fri, 17 Feb
2012, Naich <d...@mrao.cam.ac.uk> remarked:
fight. But the bus driver did wrong too.
Tricky decision sometimes, whether "flight or fight" is best, but if you
choose to fight it often has a more significant downside.
But I confidently expect to see this video used as evidence that bus
drivers make unprovoked attacks on cyclists.
--
Roland Perry
2012, Naich <d...@mrao.cam.ac.uk> remarked:
>> Neither side comes out of this incident smelling of roses. The cyclist
>> picked a fight (by propping his bike against the front of the bus and
>> having a go at the driver).
>
>Yeah, the fucker deserved it.
It's unlikely he'd have been run down later, if he hadn't picked that
>> picked a fight (by propping his bike against the front of the bus and
>> having a go at the driver).
>
>Yeah, the fucker deserved it.
fight. But the bus driver did wrong too.
Tricky decision sometimes, whether "flight or fight" is best, but if you
choose to fight it often has a more significant downside.
But I confidently expect to see this video used as evidence that bus
drivers make unprovoked attacks on cyclists.
--
Roland Perry
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Feb 17, 2012, 10:40:43 AM2/17/12
to
In article <jhlorb$ai9$1...@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk>, nm...@cam.ac.uk () wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17066798
They wouldn't do it on CCTV here. :-(
--
Colin Rosenstiel
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17066798
They wouldn't do it on CCTV here. :-(
--
Colin Rosenstiel
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Feb 17, 2012, 10:47:23 AM2/17/12
to
In article <tKidnT3dNbBm6aPS...@giganews.com>,
unprovoked except by cycling outside of the psychle gutter) was happy
to admit that it was deliberate in front of an independent witness.
Similar things have happened to other people, with similar effects.
The point is that very few such cases of assault involve injury serious
enough for the police to take any action, without a court order. So
the drivers use the common form of risk assessment (probability rather
than expected cost).
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17066798
>
>They wouldn't do it on CCTV here. :-(
Why not? The one that caused me to give up cycling (and, yes, it was
>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17066798
>
>They wouldn't do it on CCTV here. :-(
unprovoked except by cycling outside of the psychle gutter) was happy
to admit that it was deliberate in front of an independent witness.
Similar things have happened to other people, with similar effects.
The point is that very few such cases of assault involve injury serious
enough for the police to take any action, without a court order. So
the drivers use the common form of risk assessment (probability rather
than expected cost).
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Feb 17, 2012, 10:54:06 AM2/17/12
to
In article <NW6anHi7SnPPFA$6...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:
Provoked or unprovoked, it was no excuse for GBH. A bus is a heavy weapon.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Feb 17, 2012, 10:54:06 AM2/17/12
to
In article <cd02fb6252....@mrc7acorn1.path.cam.ac.uk>,
company?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
mrc7...@cam.ac.uk (Mike Clark) wrote:
> In message <jhlorb$ai9$1...@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk>
> nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17066798
>
> In message <jhlorb$ai9$1...@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk>
> nm...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
>
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17066798
>
> Funnily enough, yesterday evening, my wife had just related a story
> whereby earlier in the day she had witnessed a Cambridge bus driver
> deliberately move across and force two cyclists sideways out of the
> lane, he'd also shouted something at them. My wife latter caught up with
> the cyclists and asked them what had happened. Apparently the bus driver
> was angry at being held up and had decided to force his way through!
>
> I then showed my wife the video from Bristol. The local example
> recounted above may not have been as extreme as the Bristol video, but
> it's demonstrating a similar mentality of using the brute force of a
> bus against the fragility of a person on a bicycle.
I trust your wife has reported the details to the police and/or the bus
> whereby earlier in the day she had witnessed a Cambridge bus driver
> deliberately move across and force two cyclists sideways out of the
> lane, he'd also shouted something at them. My wife latter caught up with
> the cyclists and asked them what had happened. Apparently the bus driver
> was angry at being held up and had decided to force his way through!
>
> I then showed my wife the video from Bristol. The local example
> recounted above may not have been as extreme as the Bristol video, but
> it's demonstrating a similar mentality of using the brute force of a
> bus against the fragility of a person on a bicycle.
company?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
John Burnham
Feb 17, 2012, 10:55:17 AM2/17/12
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:47:23 +0000, nmm1 wrote:
> In article <tKidnT3dNbBm6aPS...@giganews.com>,
> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17066798
>>
>>They wouldn't do it on CCTV here. :-(
>
> Why not? The one that caused me to give up cycling (and, yes, it was
> unprovoked except by cycling outside of the psychle gutter) was happy
> to admit that it was deliberate in front of an independent witness.
Wow. I really don't understand people who would commit assault with a
> In article <tKidnT3dNbBm6aPS...@giganews.com>,
> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17066798
>>
>>They wouldn't do it on CCTV here. :-(
>
> Why not? The one that caused me to give up cycling (and, yes, it was
> unprovoked except by cycling outside of the psychle gutter) was happy
> to admit that it was deliberate in front of an independent witness.
deadly weapon merely because someone delayed them slightly (at least I'm
assuming that was the reason). Have some people really become that
impatient and selfish ?
J
Jon Warbrick
Feb 17, 2012, 11:18:06 AM2/17/12
to
In article <pan.2012.02.17....@jaka.demon.co.uk>,
with a motor vehicle as somehow different from assault with anything
else. Would this bus driver (serious question) have got 17 months in
jail for an assault causing similar damage with, say, a base ball bat?
Jon.
--
Jon Warbrick
John Burnham <jo...@jaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Wow. I really don't understand people who would commit assault with a
>deadly weapon merely because someone delayed them slightly (at least I'm
>assuming that was the reason). Have some people really become that
>impatient and selfish ?
The real problem seems to be that society appears to consider assault
>
>Wow. I really don't understand people who would commit assault with a
>deadly weapon merely because someone delayed them slightly (at least I'm
>assuming that was the reason). Have some people really become that
>impatient and selfish ?
with a motor vehicle as somehow different from assault with anything
else. Would this bus driver (serious question) have got 17 months in
jail for an assault causing similar damage with, say, a base ball bat?
Jon.
--
Jon Warbrick
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Feb 17, 2012, 11:26:02 AM2/17/12
to
badly by the attitude that cyclists are a different class of road
user. The same does not apply to horse riders, people in invalid
carriages, riders of motor mowers and even pedestrians. When those
are carved up, it is almost always because of inconsideration,
impatience and selfishness.
That effect of the policy of providing psychle farcilities was
explicitly predicted, and is strongly denied by their proponents,
despite the now overwhelming evidence that it has happened.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
John Burnham
Feb 17, 2012, 11:35:29 AM2/17/12
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:26:02 +0000, nmm1 wrote:
>
> That's not actually the reason. It's closer to tribalism,
Hmm. Fair enough. I wonder what it will take to overcome that way of
>
> That's not actually the reason. It's closer to tribalism,
thinking - it's outmoded and it's causing real harm.
J
Roland Perry
Feb 17, 2012, 11:58:40 AM2/17/12
to
In message <TsSdnZwY6ZKD5aPS...@giganews.com>, at 09:54:06
on Fri, 17 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
--
Roland Perry
on Fri, 17 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>>
>> But I confidently expect to see this video used as evidence that bus
>> drivers make unprovoked attacks on cyclists.
>
>Provoked or unprovoked, it was no excuse for GBH.
Agreed, but I'm sure my prediction will come true.
>> But I confidently expect to see this video used as evidence that bus
>> drivers make unprovoked attacks on cyclists.
>
>Provoked or unprovoked, it was no excuse for GBH.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 17, 2012, 11:59:48 AM2/17/12
to
In message <tKidnT3dNbBm6aPS...@giganews.com>, at 09:40:43
footage when a crime has been committed?
--
Roland Perry
on Fri, 17 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
Cambridge is riddled with CCTV traffic cameras. Do they not release the
footage when a crime has been committed?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 17, 2012, 12:00:56 PM2/17/12
to
In message <pan.2012.02.17....@jaka.demon.co.uk>, at
15:55:17 on Fri, 17 Feb 2012, John Burnham <jo...@jaka.demon.co.uk>
remarked:
the front of the bus and had a slanging match with the driver. The
reports don't say how much the ensuing delay was.
--
Roland Perry
15:55:17 on Fri, 17 Feb 2012, John Burnham <jo...@jaka.demon.co.uk>
remarked:
>I really don't understand people who would commit assault with a
>deadly weapon merely because someone delayed them slightly (at least I'm
>assuming that was the reason)
The reason was because the cyclist had earlier propped his bike against
>deadly weapon merely because someone delayed them slightly (at least I'm
>assuming that was the reason)
the front of the bus and had a slanging match with the driver. The
reports don't say how much the ensuing delay was.
--
Roland Perry
Tim Ward
Feb 17, 2012, 12:15:55 PM2/17/12
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ro29oAnI...@perry.co.uk...
riding my motorbike and felt I needed to talk to the following driver it was
simple enough to prop the bike up on its stand in front of the car, but not
all bicycles have stands.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
news:Ro29oAnI...@perry.co.uk...
>
> The reason was because the cyclist had earlier propped his bike against
> the front of the bus
There may not have been anywhere else convenient to prop it. Once when I was
> The reason was because the cyclist had earlier propped his bike against
> the front of the bus
riding my motorbike and felt I needed to talk to the following driver it was
simple enough to prop the bike up on its stand in front of the car, but not
all bicycles have stands.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Feb 17, 2012, 12:16:02 PM2/17/12
to
In article <pan.2012.02.17....@jaka.demon.co.uk>,
1990s, the development of that mindset could have been reversed by
reversing the policy of implementing psychle farcilities and getting
cyclists back onto the road, but it's too late for that now.
Even then, it wouldn't have been easy, because the mindset both
goes back to the 1920s and had been building for some time. But
there was a massive change in the 1990s, from my estimate of under
10% of potentially lethal incidents being deliberate to over 50%.
That coincided with the policy of encouraging cycling by providing
'off-road' and kerbside gutter psychle farcilities, and using
cyclists as a live form of 'traffic calming'; those of us who said
would inevitably lead to conflict and hostility were proved right.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
John Burnham <jo...@jaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> That's not actually the reason. It's closer to tribalism,
>
>Hmm. Fair enough. I wonder what it will take to overcome that way of
>thinking - it's outmoded and it's causing real harm.
Nothing short of a complete economic collapse. Back in the middle
>>
>> That's not actually the reason. It's closer to tribalism,
>
>Hmm. Fair enough. I wonder what it will take to overcome that way of
>thinking - it's outmoded and it's causing real harm.
1990s, the development of that mindset could have been reversed by
reversing the policy of implementing psychle farcilities and getting
cyclists back onto the road, but it's too late for that now.
Even then, it wouldn't have been easy, because the mindset both
goes back to the 1920s and had been building for some time. But
there was a massive change in the 1990s, from my estimate of under
10% of potentially lethal incidents being deliberate to over 50%.
That coincided with the policy of encouraging cycling by providing
'off-road' and kerbside gutter psychle farcilities, and using
cyclists as a live form of 'traffic calming'; those of us who said
would inevitably lead to conflict and hostility were proved right.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Roland Perry
Feb 17, 2012, 2:25:25 PM2/17/12
to
In message <9q7gac...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:15:55 on Fri, 17 Feb
2012, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
and propping his bike up against the front of the bike is quite likely
to have been deliberately in order to impede the bus's departure from
that earlier encounter.
--
Roland Perry
2012, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>> The reason was because the cyclist had earlier propped his bike against
>> the front of the bus
>
>There may not have been anywhere else convenient to prop it. Once when I was
>riding my motorbike and felt I needed to talk to the following driver it was
>simple enough to prop the bike up on its stand in front of the car, but not
>all bicycles have stands.
The problem is the urge the cyclist had to "argue with" the bus driver,
>> the front of the bus
>
>There may not have been anywhere else convenient to prop it. Once when I was
>riding my motorbike and felt I needed to talk to the following driver it was
>simple enough to prop the bike up on its stand in front of the car, but not
>all bicycles have stands.
and propping his bike up against the front of the bike is quite likely
to have been deliberately in order to impede the bus's departure from
that earlier encounter.
--
Roland Perry
Brian Watson
Feb 17, 2012, 2:53:56 PM2/17/12
to
<nm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:jhlv2q$f5m$1...@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <pan.2012.02.17....@jaka.demon.co.uk>,
> John Burnham <jo...@jaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:47:23 +0000, nmm1 wrote:
>>> In article <tKidnT3dNbBm6aPS...@giganews.com>,
>>> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17066798
>>>>
>>>>They wouldn't do it on CCTV here. :-(
>>>
>>> Why not? The one that caused me to give up cycling (and, yes, it was
>>> unprovoked except by cycling outside of the psychle gutter) was happy
>>> to admit that it was deliberate in front of an independent witness.
>>
>>Wow. I really don't understand people who would commit assault with a
>>deadly weapon merely because someone delayed them slightly (at least I'm
>>assuming that was the reason). Have some people really become that
>>impatient and selfish ?
>
> That's not actually the reason. It's closer to tribalism, fuelled
> badly by the attitude that cyclists are a different class of road
> user. The same does not apply to horse riders, people in invalid
> carriages, riders of motor mowers and even pedestrians. When those
> are carved up, it is almost always because of inconsideration,
> impatience and selfishness.
I disagree that various groups of road users are not tribal - they/we all
> John Burnham <jo...@jaka.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:47:23 +0000, nmm1 wrote:
>>> In article <tKidnT3dNbBm6aPS...@giganews.com>,
>>> <rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17066798
>>>>
>>>>They wouldn't do it on CCTV here. :-(
>>>
>>> Why not? The one that caused me to give up cycling (and, yes, it was
>>> unprovoked except by cycling outside of the psychle gutter) was happy
>>> to admit that it was deliberate in front of an independent witness.
>>
>>Wow. I really don't understand people who would commit assault with a
>>deadly weapon merely because someone delayed them slightly (at least I'm
>>assuming that was the reason). Have some people really become that
>>impatient and selfish ?
>
> That's not actually the reason. It's closer to tribalism, fuelled
> badly by the attitude that cyclists are a different class of road
> user. The same does not apply to horse riders, people in invalid
> carriages, riders of motor mowers and even pedestrians. When those
> are carved up, it is almost always because of inconsideration,
> impatience and selfishness.
are to some extent.
This is immediately evident in any conversation where a representative of
one tribe starts talking about any of the others.
"Cyclists/pedestrians/car drivers/bus drivers/cab drivers/<any other group>
are SO inconsiderate..." begins many a conversation about a recent
encounter.
If in doubt, see cam.transport passim.
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
Brian Watson
Feb 17, 2012, 2:56:54 PM2/17/12
to
outrage.
These two MAY both have contributed to the bad temper between them, but
using a bus as a weapon is unforgiveable, regardless of the provocation
(almost).
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Feb 17, 2012, 2:59:01 PM2/17/12
to
In article <Ro29oAnI...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:
I don't understand, Roland, why you think a deliberate delay in anyway
excuses committing GBH on someone.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
excuses committing GBH on someone.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Feb 17, 2012, 2:59:01 PM2/17/12
to
In article <jhlv2q$f5m$1...@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk>, nm...@cam.ac.uk () wrote:
> That effect of the policy of providing psychle farcilities was
> explicitly predicted, and is strongly denied by their proponents,
> despite the now overwhelming evidence that it has happened.
This is new heights of nonsense from a well established source. There are
> That effect of the policy of providing psychle farcilities was
> explicitly predicted, and is strongly denied by their proponents,
> despite the now overwhelming evidence that it has happened.
(relatively) more conflicts in places without cycle facilities than where
they are provided.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Feb 17, 2012, 2:59:01 PM2/17/12
to
In article <KoF7YomE...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:
Very much hit and miss, I'm afraid. The last time this issue came up here
was on the Downing St cycle lane.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
was on the Downing St cycle lane.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Brian Watson
Feb 17, 2012, 3:02:02 PM2/17/12
to
"Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9q7gac...@mid.individual.net...
> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Ro29oAnI...@perry.co.uk...
>>
>> The reason was because the cyclist had earlier propped his bike against
>> the front of the bus
>
> There may not have been anywhere else convenient to prop it. Once when I
> was riding my motorbike and felt I needed to talk to the following driver
> it was simple enough to prop the bike up on its stand in front of the car,
> but not all bicycles have stands.
Oh FFS, stopping to remonstrate with another road user is likely to provoke
> news:Ro29oAnI...@perry.co.uk...
>>
>> The reason was because the cyclist had earlier propped his bike against
>> the front of the bus
>
> There may not have been anywhere else convenient to prop it. Once when I
> was riding my motorbike and felt I needed to talk to the following driver
> it was simple enough to prop the bike up on its stand in front of the car,
> but not all bicycles have stands.
considerably more than a cheery apology, and putting your vehicle in a way
that blocks the other person's ability to avoid a conflict is even more
provocative.
If there is ever "nowhere else convenient to prop your bike or motorcycle",
pick another place to start an argument or a lesson on road manners or you
may find you will need a wheelbarrow to take it home in.
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Feb 17, 2012, 3:33:03 PM2/17/12
to
In article <6badnTHPmPvMLaPS...@bt.com>,
(well, except for a few people), but (a) tribalism is a matter of
extent and (b) how much it transfers into physical hostility
varies even more.
In my view, it's the latter effect that distinguishes the cyclists
from other groups of road users, though I am not sure whether it
is done more BY cyclists or TO cyclists. What is clear is that
the physical hostility TO cyclists causes more injury.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Brian Watson <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Wow. I really don't understand people who would commit assault with a
>>>deadly weapon merely because someone delayed them slightly (at least I'm
>>>assuming that was the reason). Have some people really become that
>>>impatient and selfish ?
>>
>> That's not actually the reason. It's closer to tribalism, fuelled
>> badly by the attitude that cyclists are a different class of road
>> user. The same does not apply to horse riders, people in invalid
>> carriages, riders of motor mowers and even pedestrians. When those
>> are carved up, it is almost always because of inconsideration,
>> impatience and selfishness.
>
>I disagree that various groups of road users are not tribal - they/we all
>are to some extent.
Reread what I said again, more carefully. You are correct in that
>
>>>
>>>Wow. I really don't understand people who would commit assault with a
>>>deadly weapon merely because someone delayed them slightly (at least I'm
>>>assuming that was the reason). Have some people really become that
>>>impatient and selfish ?
>>
>> That's not actually the reason. It's closer to tribalism, fuelled
>> badly by the attitude that cyclists are a different class of road
>> user. The same does not apply to horse riders, people in invalid
>> carriages, riders of motor mowers and even pedestrians. When those
>> are carved up, it is almost always because of inconsideration,
>> impatience and selfishness.
>
>I disagree that various groups of road users are not tribal - they/we all
>are to some extent.
(well, except for a few people), but (a) tribalism is a matter of
extent and (b) how much it transfers into physical hostility
varies even more.
In my view, it's the latter effect that distinguishes the cyclists
from other groups of road users, though I am not sure whether it
is done more BY cyclists or TO cyclists. What is clear is that
the physical hostility TO cyclists causes more injury.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Bill
Feb 17, 2012, 9:39:46 PM2/17/12
to
In message <46qdnd35HPerL6PS...@bt.com>, Brian Watson
<Br...@imagebus.co.uk> writes
I had a "discussion" with a cyclist last year, he seemed upset that I
had beeped my horn at him when he cut between the front of my car and a
parked car as I was reverse parking in a narrow road. He was inches
from being hurt.
He deliberately stood his bike, on its stand, so as to prevent me from
moving the car in or out of the space I was trying to get into.
Fortunately for both of us I was feeling extremely relaxed at the time
and basically let him rant on for a while until he got bored. Even lent
him a pen and paper so he could write my reg' number down for when he
reported me for beeping!
I can't remember all the details now, but the deliberate blocking in,
with the bike, stands out in my mind.
--
Bill
<Br...@imagebus.co.uk> writes
had beeped my horn at him when he cut between the front of my car and a
parked car as I was reverse parking in a narrow road. He was inches
from being hurt.
He deliberately stood his bike, on its stand, so as to prevent me from
moving the car in or out of the space I was trying to get into.
Fortunately for both of us I was feeling extremely relaxed at the time
and basically let him rant on for a while until he got bored. Even lent
him a pen and paper so he could write my reg' number down for when he
reported me for beeping!
I can't remember all the details now, but the deliberate blocking in,
with the bike, stands out in my mind.
--
Bill
Bill
Feb 17, 2012, 9:45:00 PM2/17/12
to
In message <fYOdnQHMV_gYLKPS...@giganews.com>,
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes
I came across some mobile CCTV equipment a while back that was designed
for buses, cameras mounted on the outside of the buses and a video
recorder that not only recorded the cameras but also the position, GPS,
of the bus, speed, indicator and brake light operation plus forwards and
sideways acceleration! OK a bit expensive to install, but very useful
in the event of such incidents or accidents.
>
--
Bill
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes
for buses, cameras mounted on the outside of the buses and a video
recorder that not only recorded the cameras but also the position, GPS,
of the bus, speed, indicator and brake light operation plus forwards and
sideways acceleration! OK a bit expensive to install, but very useful
in the event of such incidents or accidents.
>
--
Bill
Message has been deleted
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 3:51:34 AM2/18/12
to
In message <lc1uj7ljr4ego49ka...@4ax.com>, at 02:03:14 on
Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> remarked:
>Well, clearly if he'd used anything else with a similar potential for
>harm, he'd have been looking at attempted murder.
>
>It seems perverse to me that he was not apparently even charged with
>that, much less tried.
It's not possible in most cases like this to prove that the bus driver
was intending to kill the cyclist. The best you can do is prove they
wanted to injure them.
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> remarked:
>Well, clearly if he'd used anything else with a similar potential for
>harm, he'd have been looking at attempted murder.
>
>It seems perverse to me that he was not apparently even charged with
>that, much less tried.
It's not possible in most cases like this to prove that the bus driver
was intending to kill the cyclist. The best you can do is prove they
wanted to injure them.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 3:57:04 AM2/18/12
to
In message <lI2dncIROIueLKPS...@bt.com>, at 19:56:54 on
Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Brian Watson <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> remarked:
"The court was told the incident started on the morning of 5
April 2011 when Hill had driven too close to Mr Mead on the
nearby St James Barton roundabout.
"Moments later the bus stopped outside Bristol Magistrates'
Court and Mr Mead propped his bike against the front of the
vehicle.
>These two MAY both have contributed to the bad temper between them,
Did.
> but using a bus as a weapon is unforgiveable, regardless of the
>provocation (almost).
Indeed, but the point is that the final act was not unprovoked.
--
Roland Perry
Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Brian Watson <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> remarked:
>>>I really don't understand people who would commit assault with a
>>>deadly weapon merely because someone delayed them slightly (at least I'm
>>>assuming that was the reason)
>>
>> The reason was because the cyclist had earlier propped his bike against
>> the front of the bus and had a slanging match with the driver. The reports
>> don't say how much the ensuing delay was.
>
>I presume there was a reason for the bike-propping - some perceived personal
>outrage.
The story is told in the news article which started this thread:
>>>deadly weapon merely because someone delayed them slightly (at least I'm
>>>assuming that was the reason)
>>
>> The reason was because the cyclist had earlier propped his bike against
>> the front of the bus and had a slanging match with the driver. The reports
>> don't say how much the ensuing delay was.
>
>I presume there was a reason for the bike-propping - some perceived personal
>outrage.
"The court was told the incident started on the morning of 5
April 2011 when Hill had driven too close to Mr Mead on the
nearby St James Barton roundabout.
"Moments later the bus stopped outside Bristol Magistrates'
Court and Mr Mead propped his bike against the front of the
vehicle.
>These two MAY both have contributed to the bad temper between them,
> but using a bus as a weapon is unforgiveable, regardless of the
>provocation (almost).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 3:59:08 AM2/18/12
to
In message <vuOdndWgI5QYLKPS...@giganews.com>, at 13:59:01
on Fri, 17 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
expression of road rage against the bus driver which caused the problem.
And once you've picked a fight with someone, there's always the risk
they'll fight back.
--
Roland Perry
on Fri, 17 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>I don't understand, Roland, why you think a deliberate delay in anyway
>excuses committing GBH on someone.
I didn't agree that the delay was the cause - it was the cyclist's
>excuses committing GBH on someone.
expression of road rage against the bus driver which caused the problem.
And once you've picked a fight with someone, there's always the risk
they'll fight back.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 4:02:18 AM2/18/12
to
In message <b02uj7tu2jk9gqciq...@4ax.com>, at 02:09:10 on
>the cyclists life.
The law doesn't recognise degrees of deliberation and premeditation in
an act of attempted murder.
Like pregnancy, it's either there or it isn't.
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> remarked:
>Probably a previous but less deliberate and premeditated attempt on
>the cyclists life.
The law doesn't recognise degrees of deliberation and premeditation in
an act of attempted murder.
Like pregnancy, it's either there or it isn't.
--
Roland Perry
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Feb 18, 2012, 5:11:25 AM2/18/12
to
In article <zdRlVdJW...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:
Intent to cause (at least) GBH is sufficient for a charge of attempted
murder. I suspect the problem in this case would be to prove to the
satisfaction of a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the driver intended that
degree of harm.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
murder. I suspect the problem in this case would be to prove to the
satisfaction of a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the driver intended that
degree of harm.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Feb 18, 2012, 5:11:25 AM2/18/12
to
In article <s9ji9NLc...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:
The law doesn't accept that as a justification for violence, especially when
the provocation was non-violent.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
the provocation was non-violent.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Mark Goodge
Feb 18, 2012, 5:13:46 AM2/18/12
to
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 02:08:04 +0000, Phil W Lee put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>"Brian Watson" <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> considered Fri, 17 Feb 2012
>But nothing short of lobbing a hand-grenade into the drivers cab would
>be sufficient to justify the vicious and premeditated attempt on the
>cyclists life that followed.
No, of course not. But understanding why something happened is not the same
as excusing it. There are two separate issues here: whether the cyclist was
wise to antagonise the bus driver, and whether the bus driver was justified
in responding the way he did. It's perfectly possible to answer both
questions with "no" without in any way minimising the guilt of the driver.
It's worth noting here that the cyclist's actions were themselves illegal:
they amounted to obstructing the highway. The fact that the driver
committed a far more serious breach of the law doesn't justify the
cyclist's actions any more than the cyclist's actions justify the driver's.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
typed:
>"Brian Watson" <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> considered Fri, 17 Feb 2012
>be sufficient to justify the vicious and premeditated attempt on the
>cyclists life that followed.
No, of course not. But understanding why something happened is not the same
as excusing it. There are two separate issues here: whether the cyclist was
wise to antagonise the bus driver, and whether the bus driver was justified
in responding the way he did. It's perfectly possible to answer both
questions with "no" without in any way minimising the guilt of the driver.
It's worth noting here that the cyclist's actions were themselves illegal:
they amounted to obstructing the highway. The fact that the driver
committed a far more serious breach of the law doesn't justify the
cyclist's actions any more than the cyclist's actions justify the driver's.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Mark Goodge
Feb 18, 2012, 5:17:46 AM2/18/12
to
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 09:02:18 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>In message <b02uj7tu2jk9gqciq...@4ax.com>, at 02:09:10 on
>Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> remarked:
>>Probably a previous but less deliberate and premeditated attempt on
>>the cyclists life.
>
>The law doesn't recognise degrees of deliberation and premeditation in
>an act of attempted murder.
Or, to be more precise, degrees of deliberation are premeditation are
relevant to the sentence, not the question of guilt.
If you intended to kill then you are guilty of attempted murder. If so,
then the reasons for that intent, and the duration of that intent (eg,
whether it was premeditated or an instant response to provocation) will
affect the likely punishment. But if you did not intend to kill then you
are not guilty of attempted murder.
typed:
>In message <b02uj7tu2jk9gqciq...@4ax.com>, at 02:09:10 on
>Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> remarked:
>>Probably a previous but less deliberate and premeditated attempt on
>>the cyclists life.
>
>The law doesn't recognise degrees of deliberation and premeditation in
>an act of attempted murder.
relevant to the sentence, not the question of guilt.
If you intended to kill then you are guilty of attempted murder. If so,
then the reasons for that intent, and the duration of that intent (eg,
whether it was premeditated or an instant response to provocation) will
affect the likely punishment. But if you did not intend to kill then you
are not guilty of attempted murder.
cpp4ever
Feb 18, 2012, 5:24:07 AM2/18/12
to
cycling as they have many blind spots. But to deliberately knock down a
cyclist like that is inexcusable as the judge and subsequent jail
sentence demonstrate.
Bill
Feb 18, 2012, 7:08:54 AM2/18/12
to
In message <nieuj7dsmusfpldle...@4ax.com>, Phil W Lee
<ph...@lee-family.me.uk> writes
>But it's not all that expensive,
>After all, how much is a smartphone - with camera, gps, various
>sensors, and a fair bit of recording space?
>When you take into account the savings on insurance. it starts looking
>good value.
>Why do you think so many cyclists are now using video?
>As insurance goes, it's pretty cheap.
http://www.dvrxireland.ie/AMM%20data%20sheet-screen.pdf
Main unit, plus 4 cameras, plus 4 ch dvr and installation costs, a day
per vehicle.. For a fleet it could get pricey.
They were rather nice, I seem to recall we had about 70 of them.
I have a couple left and keep thinking about fitting one in my car.
--
Bill
<ph...@lee-family.me.uk> writes
>>I came across some mobile CCTV equipment a while back that was designed
>>for buses, cameras mounted on the outside of the buses and a video
>>recorder that not only recorded the cameras but also the position, GPS,
>>of the bus, speed, indicator and brake light operation plus forwards and
>>sideways acceleration! OK a bit expensive to install, but very useful
>>in the event of such incidents or accidents.
>>
>Yes, some Cambridge buses have that fitted.
>>for buses, cameras mounted on the outside of the buses and a video
>>recorder that not only recorded the cameras but also the position, GPS,
>>of the bus, speed, indicator and brake light operation plus forwards and
>>sideways acceleration! OK a bit expensive to install, but very useful
>>in the event of such incidents or accidents.
>>
>But it's not all that expensive,
>After all, how much is a smartphone - with camera, gps, various
>sensors, and a fair bit of recording space?
>When you take into account the savings on insurance. it starts looking
>good value.
>Why do you think so many cyclists are now using video?
>As insurance goes, it's pretty cheap.
http://www.dvrxireland.ie/AMM%20data%20sheet-screen.pdf
Main unit, plus 4 cameras, plus 4 ch dvr and installation costs, a day
per vehicle.. For a fleet it could get pricey.
They were rather nice, I seem to recall we had about 70 of them.
I have a couple left and keep thinking about fitting one in my car.
--
Bill
Jon Anderson
Feb 18, 2012, 7:33:46 AM2/18/12
to
On 2/18/2012 8:59 AM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <vuOdndWgI5QYLKPS...@giganews.com>, at
> 13:59:01 on Fri, 17 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> remarked:
>> I don't understand, Roland, why you think a deliberate delay in
>> anyway excuses committing GBH on someone.
>
> I didn't agree that the delay was the cause - it was the cyclist's
> expression of road rage against the bus driver which caused the
> problem.
Er, no, the bus driver being a maniac was the cause of him swerving into
> In message <vuOdndWgI5QYLKPS...@giganews.com>, at
> 13:59:01 on Fri, 17 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
> remarked:
>> I don't understand, Roland, why you think a deliberate delay in
>> anyway excuses committing GBH on someone.
>
> I didn't agree that the delay was the cause - it was the cyclist's
> expression of road rage against the bus driver which caused the
> problem.
the guy. Unless you think it a reasonable, average reaction to the
behaviour of the cyclist. In which case I hope never to offend you. ;)
Jon
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 7:44:00 AM2/18/12
to
In message <aguuj7h77h4k3apv1...@news.markshouse.net>, at
10:17:46 on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
someone (other than GBH etc).
--
Roland Perry
10:17:46 on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>if you did not intend to kill then you are not guilty of attempted
>murder.
And there's not a specific offence of attempting to almost murder
>murder.
someone (other than GBH etc).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 7:47:08 AM2/18/12
to
In message <m5-dnealG4DQ5KLS...@giganews.com>, at 04:11:25
on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
road to get such a conviction.
--
Roland Perry
on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> It's not possible in most cases like this to prove that the bus
>> driver was intending to kill the cyclist. The best you can do is
>> prove they wanted to injure them.
>
>Intent to cause (at least) GBH is sufficient for a charge of attempted
>murder. I suspect the problem in this case would be to prove to the
>satisfaction of a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the driver intended that
>degree of harm.
The driver would probably have to reverse over the person laying on the
>> driver was intending to kill the cyclist. The best you can do is
>> prove they wanted to injure them.
>
>Intent to cause (at least) GBH is sufficient for a charge of attempted
>murder. I suspect the problem in this case would be to prove to the
>satisfaction of a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the driver intended that
>degree of harm.
road to get such a conviction.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 7:48:49 AM2/18/12
to
In message <M7qdnd7FXqHQ5KLS...@giganews.com>, at 04:11:25
dead as if you hadn't provoked them.
And propping your bike up in front of a bus is about as
passive-aggressive as it's possible to be. Or is it even passive?
--
Roland Perry
on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> And once you've picked a fight with someone, there's always the risk
>> they'll fight back.
>
>The law doesn't accept that as a justification for violence, especially when
>the provocation was non-violent.
But if you provoke someone holding a gun, and get shot, You are just as
>> they'll fight back.
>
>The law doesn't accept that as a justification for violence, especially when
>the provocation was non-violent.
dead as if you hadn't provoked them.
And propping your bike up in front of a bus is about as
passive-aggressive as it's possible to be. Or is it even passive?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 7:54:41 AM2/18/12
to
In message <4f3f9aa6$0$2965$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, at 12:33:46 on
Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Jon Anderson <j...@durge.org> remarked:
propped up in front of the bus blocking its progress.
It was clearly enough to offend that driver, but might not offend you or
me. We just can't tell.
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Jon Anderson <j...@durge.org> remarked:
>>> I don't understand, Roland, why you think a deliberate delay in
>>> anyway excuses committing GBH on someone.
>>
>> I didn't agree that the delay was the cause - it was the cyclist's
>> expression of road rage against the bus driver which caused the
>> problem.
>
>Er, no, the bus driver being a maniac was the cause of him swerving
>into the guy. Unless you think it a reasonable, average reaction to the
>behaviour of the cyclist. In which case I hope never to offend you. ;)
We don't know what the cyclist said to the driver while the cycle was
>>> anyway excuses committing GBH on someone.
>>
>> I didn't agree that the delay was the cause - it was the cyclist's
>> expression of road rage against the bus driver which caused the
>> problem.
>
>Er, no, the bus driver being a maniac was the cause of him swerving
>into the guy. Unless you think it a reasonable, average reaction to the
>behaviour of the cyclist. In which case I hope never to offend you. ;)
propped up in front of the bus blocking its progress.
It was clearly enough to offend that driver, but might not offend you or
me. We just can't tell.
--
Roland Perry
Tim Ward
Feb 18, 2012, 8:13:00 AM2/18/12
to
On 18/02/2012 12:54, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> It was clearly enough to offend that driver, but might not offend you or
> me. We just can't tell.
If someone causes me to stop whilst I'm driving and then approaches me I
>
> It was clearly enough to offend that driver, but might not offend you or
> me. We just can't tell.
do the obvious, which is to shut the windows, lock the doors, pick up
the phone and make as if I'm calling the police to report a road-rage
attack. So I don't usually get to hear whatever the person was going to
say to me, so there's no opportunity for me to get offended by it.
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
Alan Braggins
Feb 18, 2012, 8:24:37 AM2/18/12
to
In article <cdydnfdxybYYLKPS...@giganews.com>, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>In article <jhlv2q$f5m$1...@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk>, nm...@cam.ac.uk () wrote:
>
>> That effect of the policy of providing psychle farcilities was
>> explicitly predicted, and is strongly denied by their proponents,
>> despite the now overwhelming evidence that it has happened.
>
>This is new heights of nonsense from a well established source. There are
>(relatively) more conflicts in places without cycle facilities than where
>they are provided.
[citation required]
>In article <jhlv2q$f5m$1...@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk>, nm...@cam.ac.uk () wrote:
>
>> That effect of the policy of providing psychle farcilities was
>> explicitly predicted, and is strongly denied by their proponents,
>> despite the now overwhelming evidence that it has happened.
>
>This is new heights of nonsense from a well established source. There are
>(relatively) more conflicts in places without cycle facilities than where
>they are provided.
[citation required]
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 8:27:58 AM2/18/12
to
In message <9q9mes...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:13:00 on Sat, 18 Feb
2012, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
2012, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>> It was clearly enough to offend that driver, but might not offend you or
>> me. We just can't tell.
>
>If someone causes me to stop whilst I'm driving and then approaches me
>I do the obvious, which is to shut the windows, lock the doors, pick up
>the phone and make as if I'm calling the police to report a road-rage
>attack. So I don't usually get to hear whatever the person was going to
>say to me, so there's no opportunity for me to get offended by it.
It's still possible to be offended by an inaudible assailant.
>> me. We just can't tell.
>
>If someone causes me to stop whilst I'm driving and then approaches me
>I do the obvious, which is to shut the windows, lock the doors, pick up
>the phone and make as if I'm calling the police to report a road-rage
>attack. So I don't usually get to hear whatever the person was going to
>say to me, so there's no opportunity for me to get offended by it.
--
Roland Perry
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Feb 18, 2012, 9:17:42 AM2/18/12
to
In article <e0H+$cRM35...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:
That would do it, as could other scenarios too numerous to mention.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Feb 18, 2012, 9:17:42 AM2/18/12
to
In article <b3uuj7tmathn3os11...@news.markshouse.net>,
If the bus driver should have been been challenged for his earlier driving I
don't see why the cyclist shouldn't have spoken to him, possibly forcefully.
I would therefore challenge your assumption that his actions amounted to
obstruction. Otherwise the bus driver would have got away with boorish (I
assume) behaviour. His violent reaction just can't be excused. Full stop.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
don't see why the cyclist shouldn't have spoken to him, possibly forcefully.
I would therefore challenge your assumption that his actions amounted to
obstruction. Otherwise the bus driver would have got away with boorish (I
assume) behaviour. His violent reaction just can't be excused. Full stop.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Feb 18, 2012, 9:17:43 AM2/18/12
to
In article <P0Q6PVQQ...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:
As I've already said in this thread, the intent necessary to commit the
offence of attempted murder is only to cause GBH (or more).
--
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
offence of attempted murder is only to cause GBH (or more).
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Feb 18, 2012, 9:17:43 AM2/18/12
to
In article <b%K%q.108005$Uj7....@newsfe05.ams2>,
someone gone after the cyclist with an axe, would they have got the same or
a heavier sentence?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
n2xssvv.g...@ntlworld.com (cpp4ever) wrote:
> > The law doesn't accept that as a justification for violence,
> > especially when the provocation was non-violent.
>
> Precisely! Personally I give buses and trucks a lot of space when
> cycling as they have many blind spots. But to deliberately knock down a
> cyclist like that is inexcusable as the judge and subsequent jail
> sentence demonstrate.
The trouble is that it isn't clear that the judge did so demonstrate. Had
> > The law doesn't accept that as a justification for violence,
> > especially when the provocation was non-violent.
>
> Precisely! Personally I give buses and trucks a lot of space when
> cycling as they have many blind spots. But to deliberately knock down a
> cyclist like that is inexcusable as the judge and subsequent jail
> sentence demonstrate.
someone gone after the cyclist with an axe, would they have got the same or
a heavier sentence?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Feb 18, 2012, 9:17:43 AM2/18/12
to
In article <9q9mes...@mid.individual.net>, t...@brettward.co.uk (Tim Ward)
wrote:
Even if you know you cut the someone up?
--
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Tim Ward
Feb 18, 2012, 9:28:49 AM2/18/12
to
nutters out there who will try to beat you up for slightly
inconveniencing them on the road, and who's to say whether the cross
looking person who has stopped and got out of or off their vehicle and
is walking towards you is a nutter or not?
Obviously one forms a judgement in the circumstances; and I'm not about
to tell anyone else what their attitude to risk should be in such cases.
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Feb 18, 2012, 9:43:47 AM2/18/12
to
In article <HVTo3Rae...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:
It's /possible/ to be offended by nothing at all!
--
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 9:47:11 AM2/18/12
to
In message <K5ednaP266GbLqLS...@giganews.com>, at 08:17:42
implements_too_numerous_to_mention to finish off the recumbent cyclist.
I suppose he could drive over them forwards as well as in reverse.
Driving sideways seems a bit of a stretch.
--
Roland Perry
on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> >Intent to cause (at least) GBH is sufficient for a charge of attempted
>> >murder. I suspect the problem in this case would be to prove to the
>> >satisfaction of a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the driver intended
>> >that degree of harm.
>>
>> The driver would probably have to reverse over the person laying on
>> the road to get such a conviction.
>
>That would do it, as could other scenarios too numerous to mention.
Not very numerous, assuming the driver didn't have a gun/knife/
>> >murder. I suspect the problem in this case would be to prove to the
>> >satisfaction of a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the driver intended
>> >that degree of harm.
>>
>> The driver would probably have to reverse over the person laying on
>> the road to get such a conviction.
>
>That would do it, as could other scenarios too numerous to mention.
implements_too_numerous_to_mention to finish off the recumbent cyclist.
I suppose he could drive over them forwards as well as in reverse.
Driving sideways seems a bit of a stretch.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 9:49:20 AM2/18/12
to
In message <GuidnSP4-56bLqLS...@giganews.com>, at 08:17:42
>I would therefore challenge your assumption that his actions amounted to
>obstruction.
The propped-up-cycle was absolutely an obstruction.
>Otherwise the bus driver would have got away with boorish (I
>assume) behaviour. His violent reaction just can't be excused. Full stop.
Indeed, but that doesn't in turn excuse the cyclist's earlier behaviour.
--
Roland Perry
on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>If the bus driver should have been been challenged for his earlier driving I
>don't see why the cyclist shouldn't have spoken to him, possibly forcefully.
The main reason is that it might trigger a negative reaction.
>don't see why the cyclist shouldn't have spoken to him, possibly forcefully.
>I would therefore challenge your assumption that his actions amounted to
>obstruction.
>Otherwise the bus driver would have got away with boorish (I
>assume) behaviour. His violent reaction just can't be excused. Full stop.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 9:50:38 AM2/18/12
to
In message <AaGdnWgz__y-JKLS...@giganews.com>, at 08:43:47
on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
and shouting (even if you can't make out the words) isn't what I'd call
"nothing at all".
--
Roland Perry
on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> It's still possible to be offended by an inaudible assailant.
>
>It's /possible/ to be offended by nothing at all!
But someone deliberately blocking the patch of your vehicle and waving
>
>It's /possible/ to be offended by nothing at all!
and shouting (even if you can't make out the words) isn't what I'd call
"nothing at all".
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 9:51:15 AM2/18/12
to
In message <O66dnVUnFYqaLqLS...@giganews.com>, at 08:17:43
on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
--
Roland Perry
on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>As I've already said in this thread, the intent necessary to commit the
>offence of attempted murder is only to cause GBH (or more).
It doesn't get more correct the more you repeat it.
>offence of attempted murder is only to cause GBH (or more).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 9:52:54 AM2/18/12
to
In message <X6qdnQoFdMqaLqLS...@giganews.com>, at 08:17:43
intended to teach them a lesson and not cause serious injury.
--
Roland Perry
on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>Had someone gone after the cyclist with an axe, would they have got the
>same or a heavier sentence?
It's more difficult to argue that attacking someone with an axe is only
>same or a heavier sentence?
intended to teach them a lesson and not cause serious injury.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Feb 18, 2012, 10:29:43 AM2/18/12
to
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:17:42 -0600, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk put
It was leaning his bike against the bus in such a way that the bus couldn't
move without damaging it which amounted to obstruction. He certainly had a
right to speak to the driver as long as the bus was stationary, but not to
force the driver to remain stationary until he had finished speaking.
> Otherwise the bus driver would have got away with boorish (I
>assume) behaviour. His violent reaction just can't be excused. Full stop.
I haven't seen anyone trying to excuse it.
finger to keyboard and typed:
move without damaging it which amounted to obstruction. He certainly had a
right to speak to the driver as long as the bus was stationary, but not to
force the driver to remain stationary until he had finished speaking.
> Otherwise the bus driver would have got away with boorish (I
>assume) behaviour. His violent reaction just can't be excused. Full stop.
Mark Goodge
Feb 18, 2012, 10:40:46 AM2/18/12
to
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:17:43 -0600, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk put
The intent necessary to be guilty of attempted murder is intent to murder.
finger to keyboard and typed:
Alex Selby
Feb 18, 2012, 11:13:29 AM2/18/12
to
On 17/02/12 19:25, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <9q7gac...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:15:55 on Fri, 17 Feb
> and propping his bike up against the front of the bike is quite likely
> to have been deliberately in order to impede the bus's departure from
> that earlier encounter.
Oh that's "THE problem" is it?
The thing is, your trolling style is to take issue with the cyclist's
behaviour and if anyone says that you are excusing the bus driver's
actions then you retreat into "I wasn't defending his actions", "Two
wrongs don't make a right" etc.. But sometimes the mask slips, and it
becomes apparent that you view the cyclist as at least as culpable
as the driver, if not more so. "Neither side comes out of this incident
smelling of roses" indeed.
The bus driver could have had absolutely no expectation that the
cyclist would survive that ramming. I bet if a similar stunt was
rerun 100 times there would be a dozen or more deaths.
> In message <9q7gac...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:15:55 on Fri, 17 Feb
> 2012, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>>> The reason was because the cyclist had earlier propped his bike against
>>> the front of the bus
>>
>> There may not have been anywhere else convenient to prop it. Once when
>> I was
>> riding my motorbike and felt I needed to talk to the following driver
>> it was
>> simple enough to prop the bike up on its stand in front of the car,
>> but not
>> all bicycles have stands.
>
> The problem is the urge the cyclist had to "argue with" the bus driver,
>>> the front of the bus
>>
>> There may not have been anywhere else convenient to prop it. Once when
>> I was
>> riding my motorbike and felt I needed to talk to the following driver
>> it was
>> simple enough to prop the bike up on its stand in front of the car,
>> but not
>> all bicycles have stands.
>
> and propping his bike up against the front of the bike is quite likely
> to have been deliberately in order to impede the bus's departure from
> that earlier encounter.
Oh that's "THE problem" is it?
The thing is, your trolling style is to take issue with the cyclist's
behaviour and if anyone says that you are excusing the bus driver's
actions then you retreat into "I wasn't defending his actions", "Two
wrongs don't make a right" etc.. But sometimes the mask slips, and it
becomes apparent that you view the cyclist as at least as culpable
as the driver, if not more so. "Neither side comes out of this incident
smelling of roses" indeed.
The bus driver could have had absolutely no expectation that the
cyclist would survive that ramming. I bet if a similar stunt was
rerun 100 times there would be a dozen or more deaths.
Alex Selby
Feb 18, 2012, 11:23:39 AM2/18/12
to
I find it extremely easy to argue that ramming someone with a bus must
be intended to cause serious injury (which, unsurprisingly, it did in
this case).
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Feb 18, 2012, 11:34:43 AM2/18/12
to
In article <lvgvj71kct9i39d7s...@news.markshouse.net>,
Indeed, but the intent for murder includes mere intent to cause GBH. QED.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 11:44:18 AM2/18/12
to
In message <v7idnSAfY62-TqLS...@giganews.com>, at 10:34:43
on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
Alex claimed a 12% probability, and I think even that's on the high
side. The driver didn't run over the cyclist, and falling off a bike
doesn't cause death very often.
--
Roland Perry
on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>> The intent necessary to be guilty of attempted murder is intent to murder.
>
>Indeed, but the intent for murder includes mere intent to cause GBH.
Only when there's a "high probability" that death will ensue.
>
>Indeed, but the intent for murder includes mere intent to cause GBH.
Alex claimed a 12% probability, and I think even that's on the high
side. The driver didn't run over the cyclist, and falling off a bike
doesn't cause death very often.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 11:40:52 AM2/18/12
to
In message <jhoina$j35$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:13:29 on Sat, 18 Feb
2012, Alex Selby <a.p....@REMOVE.pobox.com> remarked:
>> The problem is the urge the cyclist had to "argue with" the bus driver,
>> and propping his bike up against the front of the bike is quite likely
>> to have been deliberately in order to impede the bus's departure from
>> that earlier encounter.
>
>Oh that's "THE problem" is it?
Yes, given that Tim was suggesting there wasn't anywhere else the bike
could have been while the cyclist argued with the bus driver. Propping
it up against the bus made sure the bus driver couldn't take the
sensible approach of ignoring him and drive off, in which case the bus
driver would not have been behind the cyclist a few moments later.
The cyclist was the one whose actions escalated this conflict.
>The bus driver could have had absolutely no expectation that the
>cyclist would survive that ramming. I bet if a similar stunt was
>rerun 100 times there would be a dozen or more deaths.
That was for the court to decide, and they found otherwise.
--
Roland Perry
2012, Alex Selby <a.p....@REMOVE.pobox.com> remarked:
>> The problem is the urge the cyclist had to "argue with" the bus driver,
>> and propping his bike up against the front of the bike is quite likely
>> to have been deliberately in order to impede the bus's departure from
>> that earlier encounter.
>
>Oh that's "THE problem" is it?
could have been while the cyclist argued with the bus driver. Propping
it up against the bus made sure the bus driver couldn't take the
sensible approach of ignoring him and drive off, in which case the bus
driver would not have been behind the cyclist a few moments later.
The cyclist was the one whose actions escalated this conflict.
>The bus driver could have had absolutely no expectation that the
>cyclist would survive that ramming. I bet if a similar stunt was
>rerun 100 times there would be a dozen or more deaths.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 11:46:51 AM2/18/12
to
In message <jhojac$mh6$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:23:39 on Sat, 18 Feb
2012, Alex Selby <a.p....@REMOVE.pobox.com> remarked:
probability of death for it to be considered attempted murder. The bus
driver was rightly sentenced for what actually happened. Trying to claim
he "got off" a charge of attempted murder is showing a lack of
understanding of the law.
--
Roland Perry
2012, Alex Selby <a.p....@REMOVE.pobox.com> remarked:
>I find it extremely easy to argue that ramming someone with a bus must
>be intended to cause serious injury (which, unsurprisingly, it did in
>this case).
I agree, but serious injury isn't death. There needs to be a high
>be intended to cause serious injury (which, unsurprisingly, it did in
>this case).
probability of death for it to be considered attempted murder. The bus
driver was rightly sentenced for what actually happened. Trying to claim
he "got off" a charge of attempted murder is showing a lack of
understanding of the law.
--
Roland Perry
Paul Rudin
Feb 18, 2012, 11:52:44 AM2/18/12
to
with a bus is not intended to cause serious injury.
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 12:20:57 PM2/18/12
to
In message <87hayo3...@no-fixed-abode.cable.virginmedia.net>, at
16:52:44 on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk>
asked).
--
Roland Perry
16:52:44 on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk>
remarked:
>>> Had someone gone after the cyclist with an axe, would they have got
>>> the same or a heavier sentence?
>>
>> It's more difficult to argue that attacking someone with an axe is
>> only intended to teach them a lesson and not cause serious injury.
>
>It's difficult to credibly argue that deliberately running into someone
>with a bus is not intended to cause serious injury.
But even more difficult with an axe (which was the question being
>>> Had someone gone after the cyclist with an axe, would they have got
>>> the same or a heavier sentence?
>>
>> It's more difficult to argue that attacking someone with an axe is
>> only intended to teach them a lesson and not cause serious injury.
>
>It's difficult to credibly argue that deliberately running into someone
>with a bus is not intended to cause serious injury.
asked).
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Feb 18, 2012, 12:45:01 PM2/18/12
to
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:34:43 -0600, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk put
finger to keyboard and typed:
>In article <lvgvj71kct9i39d7s...@news.markshouse.net>,
>use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:17:43 -0600, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk put
>> finger to keyboard and typed:
>>
>> >In article <P0Q6PVQQ...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
>> >Perry) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In message <aguuj7h77h4k3apv1...@news.markshouse.net>,
>> >> at 10:17:46 on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Mark Goodge
>>> > <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>> >> >if you did not intend to kill then you are not guilty of attempted
>> >> >murder.
>> >>
>> >> And there's not a specific offence of attempting to almost murder
>> >> someone (other than GBH etc).
>> >
>> >As I've already said in this thread, the intent necessary to commit the
>> >offence of attempted murder is only to cause GBH (or more).
>>
>> The intent necessary to be guilty of attempted murder is intent to murder.
>
>Indeed, but the intent for murder includes mere intent to cause GBH. QED.
Cite?
>In article <lvgvj71kct9i39d7s...@news.markshouse.net>,
>use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:17:43 -0600, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk put
>> finger to keyboard and typed:
>>
>> >In article <P0Q6PVQQ...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
>> >Perry) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In message <aguuj7h77h4k3apv1...@news.markshouse.net>,
>> >> at 10:17:46 on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Mark Goodge
>>> > <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>> >> >if you did not intend to kill then you are not guilty of attempted
>> >> >murder.
>> >>
>> >> And there's not a specific offence of attempting to almost murder
>> >> someone (other than GBH etc).
>> >
>> >As I've already said in this thread, the intent necessary to commit the
>> >offence of attempted murder is only to cause GBH (or more).
>>
>> The intent necessary to be guilty of attempted murder is intent to murder.
>
>Indeed, but the intent for murder includes mere intent to cause GBH. QED.
Mark Goodge
Feb 18, 2012, 12:59:12 PM2/18/12
to
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:34:43 -0600, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk put
murder includes attempt to cause GBH, but only where death actually occurs.
That is, if the intent is to cause serious injury to someone to a dgree
that is reckless as to whether they survive or not, then lack of specific
intent to cause death is not a defence to murder.
However, attempted murder requires specific intent to kill. The official
CPS guidance puts it this way:
Unlike murder, which requires an intention to kill or cause grievous
bodily harm, attempted murder requires evidence of an intention to kill
alone. This makes it a difficult allegation to sustain and careful
consideration must be given to whether on the facts a more appropriate
charge would be one under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person
Act 1861. Another possible charge may one of Making Threats to Kill.
The courts will pay particular attention to counts of attempted murder
and justifiably will be highly critical of any such count unless there is
clear evidence of an intention to kill.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/
In the case of R v Morrison [2003] 1 W.L.R.1859 (referred to by the above
document), the court held that a charge of attempted GBH and attempted
murder are different, to the extent that if a charge of attempted murder
cannot be proven then the court is entitled to substitute a charge of
attempted GBH on the basis that an attempt to kill must necessarily include
an attempt to cause GBH, but not vice versa.
finger to keyboard and typed:
>In article <lvgvj71kct9i39d7s...@news.markshouse.net>,
>use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:17:43 -0600, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk put
>> finger to keyboard and typed:
>>
>> >In article <P0Q6PVQQ...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
>> >Perry) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In message <aguuj7h77h4k3apv1...@news.markshouse.net>,
>> >> at 10:17:46 on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Mark Goodge
>>> > <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>> >> >if you did not intend to kill then you are not guilty of attempted
>> >> >murder.
>> >>
>> >> And there's not a specific offence of attempting to almost murder
>> >> someone (other than GBH etc).
>> >
>> >As I've already said in this thread, the intent necessary to commit the
>> >offence of attempted murder is only to cause GBH (or more).
>>
>> The intent necessary to be guilty of attempted murder is intent to murder.
>
>Indeed, but the intent for murder includes mere intent to cause GBH. QED.
Ignore my previous response, I misread your comment. Yes, intent to commit
>In article <lvgvj71kct9i39d7s...@news.markshouse.net>,
>use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 08:17:43 -0600, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk put
>> finger to keyboard and typed:
>>
>> >In article <P0Q6PVQQ...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
>> >Perry) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In message <aguuj7h77h4k3apv1...@news.markshouse.net>,
>> >> at 10:17:46 on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Mark Goodge
>>> > <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>> >> >if you did not intend to kill then you are not guilty of attempted
>> >> >murder.
>> >>
>> >> And there's not a specific offence of attempting to almost murder
>> >> someone (other than GBH etc).
>> >
>> >As I've already said in this thread, the intent necessary to commit the
>> >offence of attempted murder is only to cause GBH (or more).
>>
>> The intent necessary to be guilty of attempted murder is intent to murder.
>
>Indeed, but the intent for murder includes mere intent to cause GBH. QED.
murder includes attempt to cause GBH, but only where death actually occurs.
That is, if the intent is to cause serious injury to someone to a dgree
that is reckless as to whether they survive or not, then lack of specific
intent to cause death is not a defence to murder.
However, attempted murder requires specific intent to kill. The official
CPS guidance puts it this way:
Unlike murder, which requires an intention to kill or cause grievous
bodily harm, attempted murder requires evidence of an intention to kill
alone. This makes it a difficult allegation to sustain and careful
consideration must be given to whether on the facts a more appropriate
charge would be one under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person
Act 1861. Another possible charge may one of Making Threats to Kill.
The courts will pay particular attention to counts of attempted murder
and justifiably will be highly critical of any such count unless there is
clear evidence of an intention to kill.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/
In the case of R v Morrison [2003] 1 W.L.R.1859 (referred to by the above
document), the court held that a charge of attempted GBH and attempted
murder are different, to the extent that if a charge of attempted murder
cannot be proven then the court is entitled to substitute a charge of
attempted GBH on the basis that an attempt to kill must necessarily include
an attempt to cause GBH, but not vice versa.
Mark Goodge
Feb 18, 2012, 1:00:42 PM2/18/12
to
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:44:18 +0000, Roland Perry put finger to keyboard and
typed:
>In message <v7idnSAfY62-TqLS...@giganews.com>, at 10:34:43
>on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>>> The intent necessary to be guilty of attempted murder is intent to murder.
>>
>>Indeed, but the intent for murder includes mere intent to cause GBH.
>
>Only when there's a "high probability" that death will ensue.
And only when the charge *is* murder, not attempted murder.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/
(section headed "Attempted murder, contrary to section 1(1) Criminal
Attempts Act 1981")
typed:
>In message <v7idnSAfY62-TqLS...@giganews.com>, at 10:34:43
>on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>>> The intent necessary to be guilty of attempted murder is intent to murder.
>>
>>Indeed, but the intent for murder includes mere intent to cause GBH.
>
>Only when there's a "high probability" that death will ensue.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/
(section headed "Attempted murder, contrary to section 1(1) Criminal
Attempts Act 1981")
Alan Braggins
Feb 18, 2012, 1:12:41 PM2/18/12
to
In article <9q7gac...@mid.individual.net>, Tim Ward wrote:
>"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:Ro29oAnI...@perry.co.uk...
>>
>"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:Ro29oAnI...@perry.co.uk...
>>
>> The reason was because the cyclist had earlier propped his bike against
>> the front of the bus
>
>There may not have been anywhere else convenient to prop it. Once when I was
>riding my motorbike and felt I needed to talk to the following driver it was
>simple enough to prop the bike up on its stand in front of the car, but not
>all bicycles have stands.
And did the driver "do the obvious, which is to shut the windows, lock the
>> the front of the bus
>
>There may not have been anywhere else convenient to prop it. Once when I was
>riding my motorbike and felt I needed to talk to the following driver it was
>simple enough to prop the bike up on its stand in front of the car, but not
>all bicycles have stands.
doors, pick up the phone and make as if I'm calling the police to report a
road-rage attack", or is it actually not that obvious a response?
nm...@cam.ac.uk
Feb 18, 2012, 1:22:56 PM2/18/12
to
In article <slrnjjv9k...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <cdydnfdxybYYLKPS...@giganews.com>, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> That effect of the policy of providing psychle farcilities was
>>> explicitly predicted, and is strongly denied by their proponents,
>>> despite the now overwhelming evidence that it has happened.
>>
>>This is new heights of nonsense from a well established source. There are
>>(relatively) more conflicts in places without cycle facilities than where
>>they are provided.
>
>[citation required]
Our esteemed councillor is an elder of the Psychle Farcilitarians,
and doubtless it was Revealed to him.
In any case, even if it were true, it's irrelevant to the point
that I was making, which was about the overall level of conflict
and hostility.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <cdydnfdxybYYLKPS...@giganews.com>, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> That effect of the policy of providing psychle farcilities was
>>> explicitly predicted, and is strongly denied by their proponents,
>>> despite the now overwhelming evidence that it has happened.
>>
>>This is new heights of nonsense from a well established source. There are
>>(relatively) more conflicts in places without cycle facilities than where
>>they are provided.
>
>[citation required]
Our esteemed councillor is an elder of the Psychle Farcilitarians,
and doubtless it was Revealed to him.
In any case, even if it were true, it's irrelevant to the point
that I was making, which was about the overall level of conflict
and hostility.
Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 1:20:17 PM2/18/12
to
In message <slrnjjvqg...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 18:12:41 on
Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Alan Braggins <ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>And did the driver "do the obvious, which is to shut the windows, lock the
>doors, pick up the phone and make as if I'm calling the police to report a
>road-rage attack", or is it actually not that obvious a response?
Probably not, but that would have been the most sensible thing to do.
>doors, pick up the phone and make as if I'm calling the police to report a
>road-rage attack", or is it actually not that obvious a response?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 1:24:58 PM2/18/12
to
In message <4opvj7d5hrgftru6a...@news.markshouse.net>, at
18:00:42 on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
cyclist. Merely(sic) injuring him seems more likely.
(Sorry if that's agreeing with what you just said, but this seems to be
a much misunderstood area).
--
Roland Perry
18:00:42 on Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> The intent necessary to be guilty of attempted murder is intent to murder.
>>>
>>>Indeed, but the intent for murder includes mere intent to cause GBH.
>>
>>Only when there's a "high probability" that death will ensue.
>
>And only when the charge *is* murder, not attempted murder.
>
>http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/
>
>(section headed "Attempted murder, contrary to section 1(1) Criminal
>Attempts Act 1981")
Trying to unpick this a bit, "Unlike murder, which requires an intention
>>>
>>>Indeed, but the intent for murder includes mere intent to cause GBH.
>>
>>Only when there's a "high probability" that death will ensue.
>
>And only when the charge *is* murder, not attempted murder.
>
>http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/offences_against_the_person/
>
>(section headed "Attempted murder, contrary to section 1(1) Criminal
>Attempts Act 1981")
to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, attempted murder requires
evidence of an intention to kill alone".
It seems unlikely that the bus driver's intention was *only* to kill the
evidence of an intention to kill alone".
cyclist. Merely(sic) injuring him seems more likely.
(Sorry if that's agreeing with what you just said, but this seems to be
a much misunderstood area).
--
Roland Perry
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Feb 18, 2012, 2:11:25 PM2/18/12
to
In article <Hoa4o7w5...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
wrote:
I was only comparing the likely sentences.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
wrote:
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Brian Watson
Feb 18, 2012, 2:35:37 PM2/18/12
to
news:s9ji9NLc...@perry.co.uk...
> In message <vuOdndWgI5QYLKPS...@giganews.com>, at 13:59:01 on
> Fri, 17 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>>I don't understand, Roland, why you think a deliberate delay in anyway
>>excuses committing GBH on someone.
>
> I didn't agree that the delay was the cause - it was the cyclist's
> expression of road rage against the bus driver which caused the problem.
>
> And once you've picked a fight with someone, there's always the risk
> they'll fight back.
That last statement is true, which is why I said what I said about "having a
word" with someone who you think has misbehaved in some way (ie, it's
provocative, and may have unanticipated consequences of a personally
injurious nature), but we don't know how this started - whether the cyclist
or the bus driver was the first to incite the other's ire.
Either way, the thing escalated because neither was prepared to back down.
Machiavelli had a few wise words to say on the futility of pursuing a
conflict one cannot conclusively win.
I recommend "The Prince" to all road users.
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
> In message <vuOdndWgI5QYLKPS...@giganews.com>, at 13:59:01 on
> Fri, 17 Feb 2012, rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk remarked:
>>I don't understand, Roland, why you think a deliberate delay in anyway
>>excuses committing GBH on someone.
>
> I didn't agree that the delay was the cause - it was the cyclist's
> expression of road rage against the bus driver which caused the problem.
>
> And once you've picked a fight with someone, there's always the risk
> they'll fight back.
That last statement is true, which is why I said what I said about "having a
word" with someone who you think has misbehaved in some way (ie, it's
provocative, and may have unanticipated consequences of a personally
injurious nature), but we don't know how this started - whether the cyclist
or the bus driver was the first to incite the other's ire.
Either way, the thing escalated because neither was prepared to back down.
Machiavelli had a few wise words to say on the futility of pursuing a
conflict one cannot conclusively win.
I recommend "The Prince" to all road users.
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."
Brian Watson
Feb 18, 2012, 2:40:26 PM2/18/12
to
"Phil W Lee" <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote in message
news:qs1uj7tkjr02009uf...@4ax.com...
> "Brian Watson" <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> considered Fri, 17 Feb 2012
> 20:02:02 -0000 the perfect time to write:
>>Oh FFS, stopping to remonstrate with another road user is likely to
>>provoke
>>considerably more than a cheery apology, and putting your vehicle in a way
>>that blocks the other person's ability to avoid a conflict is even more
>>provocative.
>>
>>If there is ever "nowhere else convenient to prop your bike or
>>motorcycle",
>>pick another place to start an argument or a lesson on road manners or you
>>may find you will need a wheelbarrow to take it home in.
>
> But nothing short of lobbing a hand-grenade into the drivers cab would
> be sufficient to justify the vicious and premeditated attempt on the
> cyclists life that followed.
I agree.
Satisfied? :-)
I'm just saying that this escalated because neither side would back down.
Brian Watson
Feb 18, 2012, 2:44:27 PM2/18/12
to
<rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GuidnSP4-56bLqLS...@giganews.com...
> If the bus driver should have been been challenged for his earlier driving
> I
> don't see why the cyclist shouldn't have spoken to him, possibly
> forcefully.
perceived lack of skill in front of his customers (I am assuming he has
passengers on board) is likely to get a cheery "quite right, sorry old
chap!" and a wave of apology?
I think not.
> I would therefore challenge your assumption that his actions amounted to
> obstruction.
> Otherwise the bus driver would have got away with boorish (I
> assume) behaviour. His violent reaction just can't be excused. Full stop.
And I'm not excusing it; I'm trying to understand it.
Brian Watson
Feb 18, 2012, 2:49:30 PM2/18/12
to
<nm...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:jhmdhv$in7$1...@gosset.csi.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <6badnTHPmPvMLaPS...@bt.com>,
> Brian Watson <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>Wow. I really don't understand people who would commit assault with a
>>>>deadly weapon merely because someone delayed them slightly (at least I'm
>>>>assuming that was the reason). Have some people really become that
>>>>impatient and selfish ?
>>>
>>> That's not actually the reason. It's closer to tribalism, fuelled
>>> badly by the attitude that cyclists are a different class of road
>>> user. The same does not apply to horse riders, people in invalid
>>> carriages, riders of motor mowers and even pedestrians. When those
>>> are carved up, it is almost always because of inconsideration,
>>> impatience and selfishness.
>>
>>I disagree that various groups of road users are not tribal - they/we all
>>are to some extent.
>
> Reread what I said again, more carefully. You are correct in that
> (well, except for a few people), but (a) tribalism is a matter of
> extent and (b) how much it transfers into physical hostility
> varies even more.
Agreed.
> In my view, it's the latter effect that distinguishes the cyclists
> from other groups of road users, though I am not sure whether it
> is done more BY cyclists or TO cyclists. What is clear is that
> the physical hostility TO cyclists causes more injury.
I don't cycle any more (last time it did I found it very scary and I prefer
to drive with my blood pressure nearer to "normal") but I see and hear
examples of tribalism in all groups of road users.
I don't perceive cyclists as being special or unique in that regard.
Except in cam.transport, of course <runs for cover>.
:-)
Brian Watson
Feb 18, 2012, 2:55:00 PM2/18/12
to
news:M9sqN2Kg...@perry.co.uk...
> In message <lI2dncIROIueLKPS...@bt.com>, at 19:56:54 on
> Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Brian Watson <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> remarked:
>>> reports
>>> don't say how much the ensuing delay was.
>>
>>I presume there was a reason for the bike-propping - some perceived
>>personal
>>outrage.
>
> The story is told in the news article which started this thread:
>
> "The court was told the incident started on the morning of 5
> April 2011 when Hill had driven too close to Mr Mead on the
> nearby St James Barton roundabout.
I wonder if THAT was proved by CCTV coverage?
The cyclist felt he had been wronged.
I presume the bus driver felt the cyclist hadn't, and that the bus had
negotiated the roundabout properly.
And so right there you have the true origin of the incident.
> In message <lI2dncIROIueLKPS...@bt.com>, at 19:56:54 on
> Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Brian Watson <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>I really don't understand people who would commit assault with a
>>>>deadly weapon merely because someone delayed them slightly (at least I'm
>>>>assuming that was the reason)
>>>
>>>>deadly weapon merely because someone delayed them slightly (at least I'm
>>>>assuming that was the reason)
>>>
>>> The reason was because the cyclist had earlier propped his bike against
>>> the front of the bus and had a slanging match with the driver. The
>>> reports
>>> don't say how much the ensuing delay was.
>>
>>I presume there was a reason for the bike-propping - some perceived
>>personal
>>outrage.
>
> The story is told in the news article which started this thread:
>
> "The court was told the incident started on the morning of 5
> April 2011 when Hill had driven too close to Mr Mead on the
> nearby St James Barton roundabout.
I wonder if THAT was proved by CCTV coverage?
The cyclist felt he had been wronged.
I presume the bus driver felt the cyclist hadn't, and that the bus had
negotiated the roundabout properly.
And so right there you have the true origin of the incident.
Alex Selby
Feb 18, 2012, 3:13:44 PM2/18/12
to
On 18/02/12 16:40, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <jhoina$j35$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:13:29 on Sat, 18 Feb
> 2012, Alex Selby <a.p....@REMOVE.pobox.com> remarked:
>
>>> The problem is the urge the cyclist had to "argue with" the bus driver,
>>> and propping his bike up against the front of the bike is quite likely
>>> to have been deliberately in order to impede the bus's departure from
>>> that earlier encounter.
>>
>> Oh that's "THE problem" is it?
>
> Yes,
So you admit that you think there is no other problem. I.e., you admit
> In message <jhoina$j35$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:13:29 on Sat, 18 Feb
> 2012, Alex Selby <a.p....@REMOVE.pobox.com> remarked:
>
>>> The problem is the urge the cyclist had to "argue with" the bus driver,
>>> and propping his bike up against the front of the bike is quite likely
>>> to have been deliberately in order to impede the bus's departure from
>>> that earlier encounter.
>>
>> Oh that's "THE problem" is it?
>
> Yes,
that you think the driver's actions were unproblematic.
> given that Tim was suggesting there wasn't anywhere else the bike
> could have been while the cyclist argued with the bus driver. Propping
come across here is that you only, or mainly, see a problem with the
cyclist's actions.
> it up against the bus made sure the bus driver couldn't take the
> sensible approach of ignoring him and drive off, in which case the bus
> driver would not have been behind the cyclist a few moments later.
>
> The cyclist was the one whose actions escalated this conflict.
escalated the conflict a little by ramming the cyclist?
>> The bus driver could have had absolutely no expectation that the
>> cyclist would survive that ramming. I bet if a similar stunt was
>> rerun 100 times there would be a dozen or more deaths.
>
> That was for the court to decide, and they found otherwise.
The court was asked to decide on the question of dangerous driving and
GBH, and the driver was found guilty of these charges.
Alex Selby
Feb 18, 2012, 3:41:29 PM2/18/12
to
commenting on the question of attempted murder, which is something else
altogether. I know very well that (on the evidence we've seen so far)
an attempted murder charge wouldn't stick.
You said that you could argue that ramming someone with a bus could be
argued as not intending to cause serious injury. I buzzed that
statement.
You also suggested that ramming someone with a bus might be argued as
"only intended to teach a lesson", which (unsurprisingly) is not a
defence the driver chose to use.
BTW, there's a clearer video here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102578/Cyclist-Phillip-Mead-forgives-road-rage-bus-driver-Gavin-Hill-mowed-down.html
It's pretty clear that the driver doesn't just brush against the
cyclist: he accelerates into him. Fortunately for the cyclist, he
gets thrown clear and is "only" seriously injured.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Tim Ward
Feb 18, 2012, 5:10:03 PM2/18/12
to
On 18/02/2012 18:12, Alan Braggins wrote:
>>
>> There may not have been anywhere else convenient to prop it. Once when I was
>> riding my motorbike and felt I needed to talk to the following driver it was
>> simple enough to prop the bike up on its stand in front of the car, but not
>> all bicycles have stands.
>
> And did the driver "do the obvious, which is to shut the windows, lock the
> doors, pick up the phone and make as if I'm calling the police to report a
> road-rage attack", or is it actually not that obvious a response?
This was before the days of mobile phones, so the answer to your
>>
>> There may not have been anywhere else convenient to prop it. Once when I was
>> riding my motorbike and felt I needed to talk to the following driver it was
>> simple enough to prop the bike up on its stand in front of the car, but not
>> all bicycles have stands.
>
> And did the driver "do the obvious, which is to shut the windows, lock the
> doors, pick up the phone and make as if I'm calling the police to report a
> road-rage attack", or is it actually not that obvious a response?
question is "no".
--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 5:22:05 PM2/18/12
to
In message <jhp0pp$8d5$1...@dont-email.me>, at 20:13:44 on Sat, 18 Feb
>I.e., you admit
>that you think the driver's actions were unproblematic.
I've said the reverse numerous times.
>> given that Tim was suggesting there wasn't anywhere else the bike
>> could have been while the cyclist argued with the bus driver. Propping
>
>You may think you have some plausible deniability, but the way you
>come across here is that you only, or mainly, see a problem with the
>cyclist's actions.
To the extent that his actions started the road rage episode, yes.
>> it up against the bus made sure the bus driver couldn't take the
>> sensible approach of ignoring him and drive off, in which case the bus
>> driver would not have been behind the cyclist a few moments later.
>>
>> The cyclist was the one whose actions escalated this conflict.
>
>You're doing it again: "THE ONE". You wouldn't say the bus driver
>escalated the conflict a little by ramming the cyclist?
The bus driver did too, but without the bike being propped up against
his bus he might very well have driven off and the incident would have
been defused.
>>> The bus driver could have had absolutely no expectation that the
>>> cyclist would survive that ramming. I bet if a similar stunt was
>>> rerun 100 times there would be a dozen or more deaths.
>>
>> That was for the court to decide, and they found otherwise.
>
>Not at all. That was not what the court had to decide.
>
>The court was asked to decide on the question of dangerous driving and
>GBH, and the driver was found guilty of these charges.
More information has emerged over the day (regarding the law), such that
even if the bus driver expected to injure the cyclist, he was charged
with the correct offence.
--
Roland Perry
2012, Alex Selby <a.p....@REMOVE.pobox.com> remarked:
>On 18/02/12 16:40, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <jhoina$j35$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:13:29 on Sat, 18 Feb
>> 2012, Alex Selby <a.p....@REMOVE.pobox.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> The problem is the urge the cyclist had to "argue with" the bus driver,
>>>> and propping his bike up against the front of the bike is quite likely
>>>> to have been deliberately in order to impede the bus's departure from
>>>> that earlier encounter.
>>>
>>> Oh that's "THE problem" is it?
>>
>> Yes,
>
>So you admit that you think there is no other problem.
No, I didn't say that.
>On 18/02/12 16:40, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <jhoina$j35$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:13:29 on Sat, 18 Feb
>> 2012, Alex Selby <a.p....@REMOVE.pobox.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> The problem is the urge the cyclist had to "argue with" the bus driver,
>>>> and propping his bike up against the front of the bike is quite likely
>>>> to have been deliberately in order to impede the bus's departure from
>>>> that earlier encounter.
>>>
>>> Oh that's "THE problem" is it?
>>
>> Yes,
>
>So you admit that you think there is no other problem.
>I.e., you admit
>that you think the driver's actions were unproblematic.
>> given that Tim was suggesting there wasn't anywhere else the bike
>> could have been while the cyclist argued with the bus driver. Propping
>
>You may think you have some plausible deniability, but the way you
>come across here is that you only, or mainly, see a problem with the
>cyclist's actions.
>> it up against the bus made sure the bus driver couldn't take the
>> sensible approach of ignoring him and drive off, in which case the bus
>> driver would not have been behind the cyclist a few moments later.
>>
>> The cyclist was the one whose actions escalated this conflict.
>
>You're doing it again: "THE ONE". You wouldn't say the bus driver
>escalated the conflict a little by ramming the cyclist?
his bus he might very well have driven off and the incident would have
been defused.
>>> The bus driver could have had absolutely no expectation that the
>>> cyclist would survive that ramming. I bet if a similar stunt was
>>> rerun 100 times there would be a dozen or more deaths.
>>
>> That was for the court to decide, and they found otherwise.
>
>Not at all. That was not what the court had to decide.
>
>The court was asked to decide on the question of dangerous driving and
>GBH, and the driver was found guilty of these charges.
even if the bus driver expected to injure the cyclist, he was charged
with the correct offence.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 5:22:42 PM2/18/12
to
In message <ci80k79t0v8bqsemd...@4ax.com>, at 22:14:14 on
Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> remarked:
>>Intent to cause (at least) GBH is sufficient for a charge of attempted
>>murder. I suspect the problem in this case would be to prove to the
>>satisfaction of a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the driver intended that
>>degree of harm.
>
>I can't see any other interpretation.
>If you don't intend that degree of harm, you don't use a bus as a
>weapon against an unprotected human being.
You have to intend to kill.
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> remarked:
>>Intent to cause (at least) GBH is sufficient for a charge of attempted
>>murder. I suspect the problem in this case would be to prove to the
>>satisfaction of a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the driver intended that
>>degree of harm.
>
>I can't see any other interpretation.
>If you don't intend that degree of harm, you don't use a bus as a
>weapon against an unprotected human being.
You have to intend to kill.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 5:23:37 PM2/18/12
to
In message <mp60k7ddtgkq718e4...@4ax.com>, at 21:49:29 on
>whether the actions of the bus driver amounted to attempted murder was
>not put to the court.
Because they would find it difficult to show the bus driver intended to
kill.
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> remarked:
>Yes, it is a shameful indictment of the CPS that the question of
>whether the actions of the bus driver amounted to attempted murder was
>not put to the court.
Because they would find it difficult to show the bus driver intended to
kill.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 5:26:55 PM2/18/12
to
In message <a970k795m69ur2jb4...@4ax.com>, at 22:04:39 on
>verdict on whether there was any other interpretation of deliberately
>attacking an unprotected human being with a 10 tonne weapon than it
>being an attempt to kill.
For it to be attempted murder, it's quite clear the driver would have to
reverse over the cyclist (or similar action). Just swiping them off,
while reprehensible, is not attempted murder according to the law, even
if it makes a good catch phrase in a discussion like this.
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> remarked:
>And of course, the court was never given the option to give any
>verdict on whether there was any other interpretation of deliberately
>attacking an unprotected human being with a 10 tonne weapon than it
>being an attempt to kill.
For it to be attempted murder, it's quite clear the driver would have to
reverse over the cyclist (or similar action). Just swiping them off,
while reprehensible, is not attempted murder according to the law, even
if it makes a good catch phrase in a discussion like this.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 5:28:23 PM2/18/12
to
In message <7oedneWzpp2Ln93S...@bt.com>, at 19:55:00 on
Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Brian Watson <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> remarked:
incident to a stand-up row.
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Brian Watson <Br...@imagebus.co.uk> remarked:
>> "The court was told the incident started on the morning of 5
>> April 2011 when Hill had driven too close to Mr Mead on the
>> nearby St James Barton roundabout.
>
>I wonder if THAT was proved by CCTV coverage?
>
>The cyclist felt he had been wronged.
>
>I presume the bus driver felt the cyclist hadn't, and that the bus had
>negotiated the roundabout properly.
>
>And so right there you have the true origin of the incident.
Indeed, but it was the cyclist who escalated it from an everyday traffic
>> April 2011 when Hill had driven too close to Mr Mead on the
>> nearby St James Barton roundabout.
>
>I wonder if THAT was proved by CCTV coverage?
>
>The cyclist felt he had been wronged.
>
>I presume the bus driver felt the cyclist hadn't, and that the bus had
>negotiated the roundabout properly.
>
>And so right there you have the true origin of the incident.
incident to a stand-up row.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Feb 18, 2012, 5:37:41 PM2/18/12
to
In message <jhp2dq$hgm$1...@dont-email.me>, at 20:41:29 on Sat, 18 Feb
asked regarding attacking someone with an axe.
--
Roland Perry
2012, Alex Selby <a.p....@REMOVE.pobox.com> remarked:
>You also suggested that ramming someone with a bus might be argued as
>"only intended to teach a lesson"
No I didn't. You are misrepresenting a remark I made about a question
>"only intended to teach a lesson"
asked regarding attacking someone with an axe.
--
Roland Perry
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages