YouTube idiots

custardy

londonTiger wrote: »

Exactly. I don't know why the cyclists are putting the blame entirely on the car driver. AFAIK if you start a fight and get beaten up you have no sympathy. If police were to be involved they wouldn't have much sympathy for the cyclist either. They'd have a strong word with both. But cyclist ultimately started it.

You dont know much it seems.
Define starting a fight in legal terms for me

Mark_Mark

londonTiger wrote: »

Exactly. I don't know why the cyclists are putting the blame entirely on the car driver. AFAIK if you start a fight and get beaten up you have no sympathy. If police were to be involved they wouldn't have much sympathy for the cyclist either. They'd have a strong word with both. But cyclist ultimately started it.

The police aren't there to dish out sympathy and would have to deal with the assault if it were reported to them. As they would with any other crime.

adouglasmhor

londonTiger wrote: »

Exactly. I don't know why the cyclists are putting the blame entirely on the car driver. AFAIK if you start a fight and get beaten up you have no sympathy. If police were to be involved they wouldn't have much sympathy for the cyclist either. They'd have a strong word with both. But cyclist ultimately started it.

In your eminent opinion, was the driver genuinely in fear of his life or of injury? Driver drove like a tit cyclist overacted then provoked it further and driver overreacted. Pair of prïcks. Handbags at dawn.

londonTiger

custardy wrote: »

You dont know much it seems.
Define starting a fight in legal terms for me

Well there is planet legalese that custard lives in. And there's real life where things are a bit more complicated. Who said anything about law? Am I a solictor? did I say starting a fight was a legal thing?

adouglasmhor

Anyone can start a fight, some people are pretty good at finishing them. That wasn't really a fight though.

Mark_Mark

adouglasmhor wrote: »

In your eminent opinion, was the driver genuinely in fear of his life or of injury? Driver drove like a tit cyclist overacted then provoked it further and driver overreacted. Pair of prïcks. Handbags at dawn.

The driver didn't overreact did he?

I think the cyclist was assaulted by the read seat passenger.

londonTiger

adouglasmhor wrote: »

In your eminent opinion, was the driver genuinely in fear of his life or of injury? Driver drove like a tit cyclist overacted then provoked it further and driver overreacted. Pair of prïcks. Handbags at dawn.

Well point is passenger could argue that in court and probably get it thrown out.

I also think both are in the wrong. But I dislike the fact that the cycling brigade are laying on the passenger of the vehicle and ignoring the cyclist's sins.

Let me explain in playgroundanalogies. You have a problem with another kid, neither of your are goody two shoes, so you decide to get into a fist fight behind the bike shed to sort it out. In the fight Ted gets beaten up while Tom walks away unscathed. They both agreed to fight, so why is Ted now going to to teachers to complain that Tom hit him.

custardy

londonTiger wrote: »

Exactly. I don't know why the cyclists are putting the blame entirely on the car driver. AFAIK if you start a fight and get beaten up you have no sympathy. If police were to be involved they wouldn't have much sympathy for the cyclist either. They'd have a strong word with both. But cyclist ultimately started it.

londonTiger wrote: »

Well there is planet legalese that custard lives in. And there's real life where things are a bit more complicated. Who said anything about law? Am I a solictor? did I say starting a fight was a legal thing?

So the police in your scenario dont have anything to do with the law?
seems a little counter intuitive
So should AFAIK actually read as "in my opinion"?

custardy

londonTiger wrote: »

Well point is passenger could argue that in court and probably get it thrown out.

I also think both are in the wrong. But I dislike the fact that the cycling brigade are laying on the passenger of the vehicle and ignoring the cyclist's sins.

Let me explain in playgroundanalogies. You have a problem with another kid, neither of your are goody two shoes, so you decide to get into a fist fight behind the bike shed to sort it out. In the fight Ted gets beaten up while Tom walks away unscathed. They both agreed to fight, so why is Ted now going to to teachers to complain that Tom hit him.

So the 2 people in the car felt threatened?
In your analogy. shouldnt the driver/passenger be limited to shouting?

adouglasmhor

londonMoggie wrote: »

Well point is passenger could argue that in court and probably get it thrown out.

I also think both are in the wrong. But I dislike the fact that the cycling brigade are laying on the passenger of the vehicle and ignoring the cyclist's sins.

Let me explain in playgroundanalogies. You have a problem with another kid, neither of your are goody two shoes, so you decide to get into a fist fight behind the bike shed to sort it out. In the fight Ted gets beaten up while Tom walks away unscathed. They both agreed to fight, so why is Ted now going to to teachers to complain that Tom hit him.

I left school 3 decades ago. I didn't see anyone agreeing to fight in private, and grown ups have grown up rules.