Violent Assault leaves my Retro bike DEAD... what next ?

[sastusbulbas]

I may not be seeing this right, but I can see a little of what she may have seen thought, after all, you were not in your rights and you damaged her car, she may have had a stressfull day, PMT, lost her job or whatever.

You hit her car, she assumed damage, and you did not stop and appologise.

She got upset, and tried to follow you, you still did not stop, she got frustrated, and more determined.

She finally confronted you, after you seeming to run away, and she overreacted.

You reacted and her boyfriend intervened.

I would say you got off lucky, mind your manners and remember what being silly can do, at least you did not end up through a car windscreen or stabbed!

I would be angry if a car driver was in the wrong and clipped me on my bike, I would also be angry if a cyclist hit my car and rode off.

If someone marked/scratched/damaged my property due to being careless or in a "rush" I would confront them, if some man physically handled my woman after hitting her car and running away I would break his hand or arm.

Think about it all, how many of us cyclists bitch when hit by cars, and highlight the fact "they didn't stop", while other cyclists act like they own the roads and pavements, insight anger in car users, and give us all a bad name?

Legally you were in the wrong and irresponsible.

 

[sastusbulbas]

We only have half of this story and a clip of a wing mirror to you might be more and sound a lot more to a motorist sat in traffic. As for bending back the mirror, providing the car and bike were going the same way down the road the bending back of the mirror is a physical impossibility. How you can judge what damage you've done when riding past is absolutely impossible IMHO also.

Dude, stop digging. Yes we only have half of the story, and yes you can choose whether or not to take it on face value. But I do find it a bit grim that you are arguing such points as above. It just seems your trying to justify the occupants of the car assaulting him, making it seem as though he had it coming..

Quite the opposite Jerky after 2 tours of Iraq, 3 of Afghanistan and a tour of Sierra Leone i've seen enough violence to last me a lifetime. What riles me is cyclists who think the rules of road aren't applicable to them. You clip a car you stop, apologise, take a bollocking if necessary after all it was 100% your fault. Don't just ride off, I think it sums up perfectly the stinking attitude that this country has adopted (especially in inner cities I might add) where nobody wishes to take responsibilty for there own actions.

A big thumbs up. Just reading through the post now and surprised at the defensive nature for cyclists doing what they want.

 

[ferrus]

GRRR !! ... :evil: :evil: :evil:

-Agree to differ, I guess.... ?

 

[PurpleFrog]

I may not be seeing this right, but I can see a little of what she may have seen thought, after all, you were not in your rights and you damaged her car, she may have had a stressfull day, PMT, lost her job or whatever.

Or maybe she was upset because she'd just realized that she had accidentally fitted her car with false number plates. (Did you read the thread?)

You hit her car, she assumed damage, and you did not stop and appologise.

She got upset, and tried to follow you, you still did not stop, she got frustrated, and more determined.

She finally confronted you, after you seeming to run away, and she overreacted.

You reacted and her boyfriend intervened.

I would say you got off lucky, mind your manners and remember what being silly can do, at least you did not end up through a car windscreen or stabbed!

I would be angry if a car driver was in the wrong and clipped me on my bike, I would also be angry if a cyclist hit my car and rode off.

If someone marked/scratched/damaged my property due to being careless or in a "rush" I would confront them, if some man physically handled my woman after hitting her car and running away I would break his hand or arm.

Think about it all, how many of us cyclists bitch when hit by cars, and highlight the fact "they didn't stop", while other cyclists act like they own the roads and pavements, insight anger in car users, and give us all a bad name?

The above is silly but a matter of opinion.

Legally you were in the wrong and irresponsible.

This is stupid and definitively wrong: if you DAMAGE someone's car you are obliged to stop, but not for mere light contact.

 

[gibbleking]

legaly you can keep going but you are required to report it.this is for minor collisions only ...

 

[Neil]

Legally you were in the wrong and irresponsible.

I quite disagree.

I think legally, he did no wrong at all. Sure, some people may opine that morally he should have been initially more concillatory, but legally he did no wrong that I can see.

As he cycled through a gap, he made slight contact, to which we are told no damage occurred. Therefore no "accident" that requires the exchange of details.

He was then chased - by a car. That has dubious legality. Quite naturally, he tried to evade / escape. He was chased again, and you'd have to say such maneouvres by the car strike you as being something that wouldn't pass the scrutiny of a TO.

Then he was confronted, verbally harassed, then physically assaulted. He then defended himself, after provocation, then was attacked and assaulted causing him injury.

At this point, I'll just raise one very salient point - do we think there was any damage or injury to the people who attacked him, or their property?

During this attack, he was injured and his property was damaged beyond repair.

Now sure enough, I'll buy, he could and should have made more of an effort to apologise after making contact with the attacker's door-mirror. But in some cases, for cyclists, this can be a risk, and some drivers are very casual about where they stop and have "chats" with other road users, and get very abusive. So in mitigation, if accurately noting that no damage occurred, it's not really that wrong that he didn't stop.

I'm no apologist for either cyclists behaving without consideration, nor drivers for that matter, but you have to put these things in perspective. Regardless of what was thought about the car and it's mirror, from the account we've been given, no damage occurred - so all this indignation and rage was either on "principle" or by mistake.

Compounding that (the no damage) he was assaulted, repeatedly, tried to defend himself, after having enough of being chased BY A CAR, and then was further assaulted and his property destroyed. Regardless of what you believe about whether he should have defended himself after being repeatedly assaulted by the woman, there's a huge difference in the results between the two parties.

 

[PurpleFrog]

He was then chased - by a car. That has dubious legality.

I'd say "questionable" rather than dubious. As in "The only question is whether the use of the car was just dangerous driving or whether it constituted assualt with a deadly weapon also."

 

[TheGreenRabbit]

Just read this trhread, and its been wondering about, just wanted to say i hope your Ok and not to shaken by the event. Hope you get the bike sorted.

 

[retroklein]

pictures....!!

 

[Easy_Rider]

Less we forget, he glanced the mirror with his hand, so if he wasn't in pain how can there have been damage?

As i said before, violence for any reason except in extreme circumstances, ie protecting your family against a loonatic attacker etc, is not on!

Nobody deserves what this chap got, even if he had taken the mirror clean off and flicked the v's!

And as for "protecting his woman", well he should have had her under control in the first place

joke before anyone jumps on me...