Twisted road rage: cyclist beats motorist

[gdw]

Beating someone senseless when they are no longer able to defend themselves is wrong regardless of who started the altercation.

[djg21]

Originally Posted by Gummee

Let me get this straight: I get hit with a mirror and that's OK?
Guy gets out of his car and starts throwing punches and that's OK too?

...but I knock the guy down and make sure he's not getting up to do it again and that's NOT OK?

Did I get that right?

M

Of course its not ok for a motorist to hit a cyclist with any part his/her automobile. If this happens, your recourse is to call the police, and if injured, to seek to recover your damages.

If you are confronted and threatened by a motorist, You may use that amount of force reasonably necessary to defend yourself. The moment you use more than that reasonable amount of force, you become the aggressor.

At least from the initial story, it appears that the cyclist here continued to use force after the motorist no longer posed a danger to him, and in fact continued to beat the disabled driver. If this proves true, the cyclist was in the wrong.

However, It is unclear what actually happened here. The follow-up stories reference a passenger who also got out of the truck. There's no mention of what he did. This whole thing sounds f&$@ed up and the media coverage is very suspect.

[Rueda Tropical]

One shouldn't make any assumptions about what happened. These sort of situations once initiated can get out of control quickly.

I certainly would not condone anyone beating someone when they could not defend themselves but it may have happened so fast that the cyclist was not aware the guy was out when he punched him after taking him down. Or maybe he did know. It's all just speculation.

[Gummee]

Originally Posted by djg21

Of course its not ok for a motorist to hit a cyclist with any part his/her automobile. If this happens, your recourse is to call the police, and if injured, to seek to recover your damages.

Umm yeah. And how exactly is it you're going to get the cops to pay attention to you, much less track someone down and issue a summons? All the driver needs to say is 'I didn't see them*' and they *may* get a small ticket. Doubt it 'cause the cop didn't see it and in my case, there won't be bystanders.

Add to that there *may* be a cop somewhere within 45min of where I'm riding and well... You asked for it! Not a whole lot of coverage out in the boonies where I'm typically riding.

If you are confronted and threatened by a motorist, You may use that amount of force reasonably necessary to defend yourself. The moment you use more than that reasonable amount of force, you become the aggressor.

IDK about anyone else, but I've had to suck it up for 20+ years now. I may have a tendency to take out some of my (many) frustrations when I can. No, its not 'right' but if I'm in the situation that the guy in the OP was, well...

This whole thing sounds f&$@ed up and the media coverage is very suspect.

This

M

*see the story of the 90YO guy that just ran over and killed a cyclist in AZ and isn't even getting a ticket

[jimoots]

I start this with the preface that I'm someone that sometimes gets a bit hot under the collar after near-misses.

I also add that discussion around topics like this serve nobody unless the discussion educates or enlightens people.

There was a comment on the article that said something along the lines of "if you don't have a scratch on you, you can't go around punching people in the teeth".

Truer words never spoken, and something that I will endeavour to keep in mind next time I feel slighted.

Consider me enlightened. Thanks, thread.

[oldpotatoe]

[QUOTE=Gummee;1614107

IDK about anyone else, but I've had to suck it up for 20+ years now. I may have a tendency to take out some of my (many) frustrations when I can. No, its not 'right' but if I'm in the situation that the guy in the OP was, well...

Then be prepared to go the whole way..sit before a jury of your peers, with a lawyer, and see what happens.

Not sure taking out your (many) frustrations on a guy on the ground, and going to jail for it, would be worth it..

[Gummee]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

IDK about anyone else, but I've had to suck it up for 20+ years now. I may have a tendency to take out some of my (many) frustrations when I can. No, its not 'right' but if I'm in the situation that the guy in the OP was, well...

Then be prepared to go the whole way..sit before a jury of your peers, with a lawyer, and see what happens.

Not sure taking out your (many) frustrations on a guy on the ground, and going to jail for it, would be worth it..

I doubt we'll ever find out. Its a rare time that someone makes me mad enough to chase someone down and beat the snot out of em.

Happens on occasion, but its rare.

...however... you mess with the SO, and bets are off.

M

[Jgrooms]

I hope he has a good defense team. In today's anti cyclist climate, I wouldn't trust a jury of my 'peers.'

For example note the reporting. Hitting the cyclist with the vehicle is the cause of the "spat." Supposedly he almost died, but was later released. Now that is some great reporting. And the comments, many citing the driver's near death experience...wow!

Compare that to the comment sections when a cyclist is thrown into a windshield at 55, then bounced off the pavement & then run over. Oh well...

Defense: "why was the driver out of the vehicle?"

"Why was the driver not tested for BAC?"

"why did the passenger exit the vehicle & then flee?"

We all know what happened here. A couple of big talkin 'tough guys' messed w the wrong pissed off 'gay' cyclist in his spandex & got an ass wuppin. Oh and they were quite possibly intoxicated to boot. Watch how that'll be irrelevant to the case. "I just didn't see him judge. And golly he was riding on this busy narrow road...what could I do?"

Justice will be served?

[gdw]

"We all know what happened here."

We don't "know" anything. Jumping to conclusions based on a the limited information in the articles is foolish.

[Jgrooms]

Originally Posted by gdw

"We all know what happened here."



We don't "know" anything. Jumping to conclusions based on a the limited information in the articles is foolish.

How about this? IMO. Its a forum, not a court of law. Conclusions based on facts. Driver got his butt kicked. Driver admitted to alcohol consumption, but apparently was not tested. Rider and witnesses state he was impacted by vehicle.

Assumption based on experience: contact, verbal exchange, cyclist catches up, verbal escalates...

[LegendRider]

Originally Posted by Jgrooms

I hope he has a good defense team. In today's anti cyclist climate, I wouldn't trust a jury of my 'peers.'

Smock is loaded. He will have the best defense available.

[Jgrooms]

Originally Posted by LegendRider

Smock is loaded. He will have the best defense available.

I figured, but as gdw says we shouldn't assume :-)

Good to hear. It will be an interesting case. Lets hope its fair.

[Jgrooms]

Originally Posted by LegendRider

Smock is loaded. He will have the best defense available.

I figured, but as gdw says we shouldn't assume :-)

Good to hear. It will be an interesting case. Lets hope its fair.

[mdeeds71]

Originally Posted by jimmy-moots

I start this with the preface that I'm someone that sometimes gets a bit hot under the collar after near-misses.

I also add that discussion around topics like this serve nobody unless the discussion educates or enlightens people.

There was a comment on the article that said something along the lines of "if you don't have a scratch on you, you can't go around punching people in the teeth".

Truer words never spoken, and something that I will endeavour to keep in mind next time I feel slighted.

Consider me enlightened. Thanks, thread.

If there is an attempt to use bodily harm and it misses the target, knife that fails to penetrate my skin or a bullet that misses the intended…I will get around to taking care of the harm that was intended for me. Just because you have no scratch on you does not mean that the intent to do bodily harm was not there and there is no guarantee it will not be attempted again towards you. It is the intent that needs to be looked at not necessarily the result of their intent.

[LegendRider]

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-cou...road-rage-case