Cyclist throws cycle at van, hurls racial abuse

[Spike]

A CYCLIST threw his bike at a van and shouted racial abuse at the driver
after a crash.

The incident happened in Kiln Lane in Headington at around 12.25pm last
Tuesday when a van collided with the cyclist who then caused criminal
damage by throwing their bike multiple times onto the van's bonnet,
punching and kicking the vehicle.

The cyclist then directed racial abuse towards the driver before cycling
off again.

The cyclist is described as a white man, around 5ft 8ins tall and of slim
build.

He was wearing black glasses, a green jacket with a yellow lining and had a
blue backpack. His bike was a racing bike with white handles.

Thames Valley Police is appealing for witnesses, CCTV and dash-cam footage.

<https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/19647254.police-appeal-crash-kiln-lane-headington/>

--
Spike

[TMS320]

On 05/10/2022 12:53, Spike wrote:
>
> The incident happened in Kiln Lane in Headington at around 12.25pm
> last Tuesday when a van collided with the cyclist who then caused
> criminal damage by throwing their bike multiple times onto the van's
> bonnet, punching and kicking the vehicle.

A bicycle involved in a collision and "thrown multiple times" at a van
causing damage to the van...

> The cyclist then directed racial abuse towards the driver before
> cycling off again.

..was in a condition to ride away?

It is necessary to wonder what really caused the damage to the van.
Chuck in the allegation of racist abuse for good measure. Perhaps the
driver was on drugs.

[JNugent]

Perhaps some people are in permanent denial when it comes to the
criminal behaviour of far too many fairy-cyclists?

[TMS320]

> criminal behaviour of far too many cyclists?

Oh, has the cyclist been found guilty of criminal behaviour in one of
His Majesty's courts?

Perhaps some people know that it is not true to say that drivers never
break the law, are never reckless and are as honest as the day is long.

[JNugent]

On 08/10/2022 01:26 am, TMS320 wrote:
> On 07/10/2022 14:19, JNugent wrote:
>> On 07/10/2022 02:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 05/10/2022 12:53, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The incident happened in Kiln Lane in Headington at around
>>>> 12.25pm last Tuesday when a van collided with the cyclist who
>>>> then caused criminal damage by throwing their bike multiple times
>>>> onto the van's bonnet, punching and kicking the vehicle.
>>>
>>> A bicycle involved in a collision and "thrown multiple times" at a
>>> van causing damage to the van...
>>>
>>>> The cyclist then directed racial abuse towards the driver before
>>>> cycling off again.
>>>
>>> ..was in a condition to ride away?
>>>
>>> It is necessary to wonder what really caused the damage to the van.
>>> Chuck in the allegation of racist abuse for good measure. Perhaps
>>> the driver was on drugs.
>
>> Perhaps some people are in permanent denial when it comes to the
>> criminal behaviour of far too many cyclists?
>
> Oh, has the cyclist been found guilty of criminal behaviour in one of
> His Majesty's courts?

Come to that, has the fairy-cyclist been found?

Oh... hang on...

[And anyway, come off it... you're scraping the very bottom of that
barrel. If someone damaged or destroyed property belonging to you, one
wonders how sanguine you would be about that and how willing you would
be to regard it as perfectly legal and non-criminal. Can you spell
"hypocrite"?]

> Perhaps some people know that it is not true to say that drivers never
> break the law, are never reckless and are as honest as the day is long.

It wouldn't matter what anyone else did or had done. That would never be
any sort of excuse for behaving like the yahoos that so many
fairy-cyclists clearly are.

The best one could say for them is that they can't control themselves
(so really ought to be muzzled and confined).

[TMS320]

On 08/10/2022 09:59, JNugent wrote:
> On 08/10/2022 01:26 am, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 07/10/2022 14:19, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 07/10/2022 02:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 05/10/2022 12:53, Spike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The incident happened in Kiln Lane in Headington at around
>>>>> 12.25pm last Tuesday when a van collided with the cyclist who
>>>>> then caused criminal damage by throwing their bike multiple
>>>>> times onto the van's bonnet, punching and kicking the
>>>>> vehicle.
>>>>
>>>> A bicycle involved in a collision and "thrown multiple times"
>>>> at a van causing damage to the van...
>>>>
>>>>> The cyclist then directed racial abuse towards the driver
>>>>> before cycling off again.
>>>>
>>>> ..was in a condition to ride away?
>>>>
>>>> It is necessary to wonder what really caused the damage to the
>>>> van. Chuck in the allegation of racist abuse for good measure.
>>>> Perhaps the driver was on drugs.
>>
>>> Perhaps some people are in permanent denial when it comes to the
>>> criminal behaviour of far too many cyclists?
>>
>> Oh, has the cyclist been found guilty of criminal behaviour in one
>> of His Majesty's courts?
>

> Come to that, has the cyclist been found?

You appear to be certain the driver didn't make up the story. Of course
you would.

> Oh... hang on...
>
> [And anyway, come off it... you're scraping the very bottom of that
> barrel. If someone damaged or destroyed property belonging to you,
> one wonders how sanguine you would be about that and how willing you
> would be to regard it as perfectly legal and non-criminal. Can you
> spell "hypocrite"?]

If I had property damaged or destroyed or my life put in danger by a
driver and I gave my opinion that the culprit is evil should be banged
up for life, I would not expect people like you to tell me "that is for
a court to decide".

It is what you do. Except, for some curious reason, when it comes to
pointing a finger at a cyclist.

>> Perhaps some people know that it is not true to say that drivers
>> never break the law, are never reckless and are as honest as the
>> day is long.
>
> It wouldn't matter what anyone else did or had done. That would
> never be any sort of excuse for behaving like the yahoos that so many

> cyclists clearly are.

It is not an excuse.

> The best one could say for them is that they can't control
> themselves (so really ought to be muzzled and confined).

It means there is no reason why cyclists must be better than drivers.

[JNugent]

Why would anyone damage their own property and make up such a story?

It isn't even as though there aren't prior examples, is it? This isn't
the first time we've heard of a fairy-cyclist in a strop throwing their
fairy-cycle onto the bonnets of a cars or van, is it?

>
>> Oh... hang on...
>>
>> [And anyway, come off it... you're scraping the very bottom of that
>> barrel. If someone damaged or destroyed property belonging to you, one
>> wonders how sanguine you would be about that and how willing you would
>> be to regard it as perfectly legal and non-criminal. Can you spell
>> "hypocrite"?]
>
> If I had property damaged or destroyed or my life put in danger by a
> driver and I gave my opinion that the culprit is evil should be banged
> up for life, I would not expect people like you to tell me "that is for
> a court to decide".

That is nevertheless what you would be told about the penalty.

> It is what you do. Except, for some curious reason, when it comes to
> pointing a finger at a cyclist.

You are calling the victim a liar.

But even you, with all your renowned inventiveness in excusing crimes by
fairy-cyclists, cannot dream up a credible reason for it.

>>> Perhaps some people know that it is not true to say that drivers
>>> never break the law, are never reckless and are as honest as the day
>>> is long.
>
>> It wouldn't matter what anyone else did or had done. That would
>> never be any sort of excuse for behaving like the yahoos that so many
>> cyclists clearly are.
>
> It is not an excuse.

Oh... good...

>
>> The best one could say for them is that they can't control
>> themselves (so really ought to be muzzled and confined).
>
> It means there is no reason why cyclists must be better than drivers.

Fairy-cyclists don't need to obey the law, you mean?

It's not the first time you have made that claim, and yet you still
expect to be taken seriously.

[TMS320]

It is well known for drivers to damage the vehicle they are in charge
of. Quite remarkable you don't know this fact.

> It isn't even as though there aren't prior examples, is it? This

> isn't the first time we've heard of a cyclist in a strop
> throwing their cycle onto the bonnets of a cars or van, is it?

I have heard of it. Perhaps the drugs turned the universal "little dog"
into something much bigger and after hearing of a similar story the
driver decided it might be a good one to try on.

>>> Oh... hang on...
>>>
>>> [And anyway, come off it... you're scraping the very bottom of
>>> that barrel. If someone damaged or destroyed property belonging
>>> to you, one wonders how sanguine you would be about that and how
>>> willing you would be to regard it as perfectly legal and
>>> non-criminal. Can you spell "hypocrite"?]
>>
>> If I had property damaged or destroyed or my life put in danger by
>> a driver and I gave my opinion that the culprit is evil should be
>> banged up for life, I would not expect people like you to tell me
>> "that is for a court to decide".
>
> That is nevertheless what you would be told about the penalty.

Oh, you didn't read on to my next sentence?

>> It is what you do. Except, for some curious reason, when it comes
>> to pointing a finger at a cyclist.
>
> You are calling the victim a liar.

Stop trying to duck out. This is all about your attitude.

<....>

>> It means there is no reason why cyclists must be better than
>> drivers.
>

> Cyclists don't need to obey the law, you mean?

Sigh. It means there is no reason why cyclists must be better than drivers.

[JNugent]

What?

*Deliberately*?

On your planet, perhaps.

That barrel has been well and truly scraped dry.

>
>> It isn't even as though there aren't prior examples, is it? This
>> isn't the first time we've heard of a cyclist in a strop
>> throwing their cycle onto the bonnets of a cars or van, is it?
>
> I have heard of it. Perhaps the drugs turned the universal "little dog"
> into something much bigger and after hearing of a similar story the
> driver decided it might be a good one to try on.
>
>>>> Oh... hang on...
>
>>>> [And anyway, come off it... you're scraping the very bottom of
>>>> that barrel. If someone damaged or destroyed property belonging
>>>> to you, one wonders how sanguine you would be about that and how
>>>> willing you would be to regard it as perfectly legal and
>>>> non-criminal. Can you spell "hypocrite"?]
>
>>> If I had property damaged or destroyed or my life put in danger by
>>> a driver and I gave my opinion that the culprit is evil should be
>>> banged up for life, I would not expect people like you to tell me
>>> "that is for a court to decide".
>
>> That is nevertheless what you would be told about the penalty.
>
> Oh, you didn't read on to my next sentence?
>
>>> It is what you do. Except, for some curious reason, when it comes
>>> to pointing a finger at a cyclist.

The courts should indeed be far more robust when sentencing
fairy-cylists for their traffic offences, let alone their frequent
breaches of the Criminal Damage Act and the Offences Against The Person Act.

>
>> You are calling the victim a liar.
>
> Stop trying to duck out. This is all about your attitude.

It absolutely is not. It is all about your appalling attitude to society
and to victims of fairy-cyclists in general.

>
> <....>

>>> It means there is no reason why cyclists must be better than
>>> drivers.
>>
>> Cyclists don't need to obey the law, you mean?
>
> Sigh. It means there is no reason why cyclists must be better than drivers.

You are implicitly claiming that fairy-cyclists don't have to obey the law.

And it isn't the first time you have made that claim, explicitly or
implicitly - is it?

You have always refused to condemn law-breaking by fairy-cyclists - even
passing red traffic lights or fairy-cycling the wrong way along a
one-way street.

You have no room to preach morality to anyone.

[TMS320]

On 10/10/2022 13:51, JNugent wrote:
> On 10/10/2022 12:23 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 08/10/2022 15:26, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 08/10/2022 10:58 am, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You appear to be certain the driver didn't make up the story.
>>>> Of course you would.
>>>
>>> Why would anyone damage their own property and make up such a
>>> story?
>>
>> It is well known for drivers to damage the vehicle they are in
>> charge of. Quite remarkable you don't know this fact.
>
> What?
>
> *Deliberately*?

Wow, see those goalposts move.

>>>> If I had property damaged or destroyed or my life put in
>>>> danger by a driver and I gave my opinion that the culprit is
>>>> evil should be banged up for life, I would not expect people
>>>> like you to tell me "that is for a court to decide".
>>
>>> That is nevertheless what you would be told about the penalty.
>>
>> Oh, you didn't read on to my next sentence?
>>
>>>> It is what you do. Except, for some curious reason, when it
>>>> comes to pointing a finger at a cyclist.
>
> The courts should indeed be far more robust when sentencing

> cylists for their traffic offences, let alone their frequent
> breaches of the Criminal Damage Act and the Offences Against The
> Person Act.

A different subject.

>>> You are calling the victim a liar.
>>
>> Stop trying to duck out. This is all about your attitude.
>
> It absolutely is not.

Oh, it absolutely is.

But where did you pick up language like that?

>> <....>
>
>>>> It means there is no reason why cyclists must be better than
>>>> drivers.
>>>
>>> Cyclists don't need to obey the law, you mean?
>>
>> Sigh. It means there is no reason why cyclists must be better than
>> drivers.
>

> You are implicitly claiming that cyclists don't have to obey
> the law.

I just used the phrase "better than".

Very well, cyclists don't have to obey the law any more than drivers do.

[JNugent]

A long-time tendency here on the part of the Usual Suspects.

Their motto: "Fairy-Cyclists can do no wrong".

[JNugent]

On 08/10/2022 01:26 am, TMS320 wrote:

> On 07/10/2022 14:19, JNugent wrote:
>> On 07/10/2022 02:17 pm, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 05/10/2022 12:53, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The incident happened in Kiln Lane in Headington at around
>>>> 12.25pm last Tuesday when a van collided with the cyclist who
>>>> then caused criminal damage by throwing their bike multiple times
>>>> onto the van's bonnet, punching and kicking the vehicle.
>>>
>>> A bicycle involved in a collision and "thrown multiple times" at a
>>> van causing damage to the van...
>>>
>>>> The cyclist then directed racial abuse towards the driver before
>>>> cycling off again.
>>>
>>> ..was in a condition to ride away?
>>>
>>> It is necessary to wonder what really caused the damage to the van.
>>> Chuck in the allegation of racist abuse for good measure. Perhaps
>>> the driver was on drugs.
>>
>> Perhaps some people are in permanent denial when it comes to the
>> criminal behaviour of far too many cyclists?
>
> Oh, has the cyclist been found guilty of criminal behaviour in one of
> His Majesty's courts?

If you cam home and found that your front door had been smashed in and
all your valuables stolen, would you be reluctant to call it a crime
(perhaps on the basis that the intruder was a fairy-cyclist and
therefore might be exempt from any and all blame)?

> Perhaps some people know that it is not true to say that drivers never
> break the law, are never reckless and are as honest as the day is long.

What is this... playground time?

[TMS320]

Remarkable. You posted a question similar to this 11 days ago. After
posting about 75 posts over that time you decide to return to a stale
thread to repeat yourself.

>> Perhaps some people know that it is not true to say that drivers never
>> break the law, are never reckless and are as honest as the day is long.
>
> What is this... playground time?

Oh yes. Your blind faith that a driver's sob story is always a true
version of events makes it so.

[JNugent]

The post to which I was responding appeared in my feed today (or maybe
last night).

It's a pity you can't answer the question I posed, isn't it?

>
>>> Perhaps some people know that it is not true to say that drivers
>>> never break the law, are never reckless and are as honest as the day
>>> is long.
>
>> What is this... playground time?
>
> Oh yes. Your blind faith that a driver's sob story is always a true
> version of events makes it so.

You really do "think" that the driver damaged his own van by throwing a
fairy-cycle onto the bonnet and then blamed a non-existent
fairy-cyclist, don't you?

[TMS320]

You previously responded to my post of 08/10/2022 01:26 on 08/10/2022 09:59

> It's a pity you can't answer the question I posed, isn't it?

It's a pity that our faculties go with age.

>>>> Perhaps some people know that it is not true to say that drivers
>>>> never break the law, are never reckless and are as honest as the day
>>>> is long.
>>
>>> What is this... playground time?
>>
>> Oh yes. Your blind faith that a driver's sob story is always a true
>> version of events makes it so.
>
> You really do "think" that the driver damaged his own van by throwing a
> fairy-cycle onto the bonnet and then blamed a non-existent
> fairy-cyclist, don't you?

Only someone living in the land of the fairies could suggest that.

[JNugent]

Bingo!

*You* suggested it.
>
>

[Spike]

ROFL

--
Spike

[TMS320]

I don't "think" it at all. Your telepathic act still doesn't work.
Perhaps your inability to remember what you did last week is raising
your delusions.

[JNugent]

Whether you "think" is not my subject.

You *suggested* that the van driver damaged the bonnet of his own van
and blamed a non-existent fairy-cyclist for it.

Then you said... "Only someone living in the land of the fairies could
suggest that".

Quite, my dear chap.

Quite.

[TMS320]

Oh, it is not unusual to try to tell people what they think.

> You *suggested* that the van driver damaged the bonnet of his own van
> and blamed a non-existent fairy-cyclist for it.

I did.

> Then you said... "Only someone living in the land of the fairies could
> suggest that".

I did.

When you have worked out what "that" refers to you will notice two
statements with a very important difference.