Switching off someone else's ignition

AdrianC

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

No, you nearly shot me.

The near-inevitable result of which would be...?

Tobster86

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Have you done something unreasonable?

If you haven't why all the questions?

Ok, simple question:
If the incident (of reckless driving) were reported to the police with a full description of what happened, would they (or what probability would they) decide instead to prosecute the cyclist for pursuing the driver and switching off their ignition?

Joe_Horner

Tobster86 wrote: »

And with respect to gilbert and sullivan, tykesi and Joe Horner; please don't get on your moral high horses until you've actually seen what happened; because it's pretty impressive.

No high horse involved.

Clearly, whatever the incident was, it didn't leave the cyclist maimed at the side of the road because he was able to follow, catch, and confront the driver.

So, regardless of how impressive it was, the correct course would have been to control the urge for "retribution" (your word, not mine), take the number plate in case the video didn't show it, and report - with the video evidence - to the police. Not only is that the safer option for everyone involved, it's the one most likely to have the miscreant driver facig any repercussions for his driving.

By allowing emotions to get the better of him, the cyclist inflames the situation, creates danger for himself, the driver, and possibly other road users, and helps the driver to get away with it.

As I said before, needs to get a grip or find another way to travel - preferably something like public transport, where his own inability to control his emotions won't risk problems for others.

ilikewatch

Tobster86 wrote: »

And so it descends into a debate about the definition of 'nearly killed'. I do wonder about MSE forums sometimes!

I know, they're fairly unique...

Spicy_McHaggis

Tobster86 wrote: »

Ok, simple question:
If the incident (of reckless driving) were reported to the police with a full description of what happened, would they (or what probability would they) decide instead to prosecute the cyclist for pursuing the driver and switching off their ignition?

The offence of reckless driving no longer exists.

You'd need to back up your complaint with the video.

In answer to your question have you done something unreasonable?

ilikewatch

Tobster86 wrote: »

Ok, simple question:
If the incident (of reckless driving) were reported to the police with a full description of what happened, would they (or what probability would they) decide instead to prosecute the cyclist for pursuing the driver and switching off their ignition?

No, neither would they be likely to take any action against the driver. On the offchance that it was a particularly quiet day for crime and they were up to date with all their paperwork it's just possible that some rookie cop might be sent round to the drivers address to say "Oi, some cyclist says you were driving like a d! ck, be more careful in future".

wiogs

ilikewatch wrote: »

No, neither would they be likely to take any action against the driver. On the offchance that it was a particularly quiet day for crime and they were up to date with all their paperwork it's just possible that some rookie cop might be sent round to the drivers address to say "Oi, some cyclist says you were driving like a d! ck, be more careful in future".

Or said rookie cop might turn up at the cyclists and say "Oi, some motorist says you were behaving like a d! ck, be more careful in future"

Spicy_McHaggis

ilikewatch wrote: »

No, neither would they be likely to take any action against the driver. On the offchance that it was a particularly quiet day for crime and they were up to date with all their paperwork it's just possible that some rookie cop might be sent round to the drivers address to say "Oi, some cyclist says you were driving like a d! ck, be more careful in future".

I don't think it's fair to say that without knowing how bad the incident was. They get reported all the time but without sufficient evidence to do anything.

ilikewatch

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to say that without knowing how bad the incident was. They get reported all the time but without sufficient evidence to do anything.

The nature of helmet cam footage means that it tends to just show the cyclists point of view, whilst that can be good for capturing deliberate actions (say someone in a vehicle in front throwing a bottle at the cyclist behind), in the event of the driver making a sudden dangerous manouvre (like swerving accross into an overtaking cyclist), the footage is unlikely to show the nun carrying a basket of kittens who (the driver will say) stepped out in front if him.

Spicy_McHaggis

ilikewatch wrote: »

The nature of helmet cam footage means that it tends to just show the cyclists point of view, whilst that can be good for capturing deliberate actions (say someone in a vehicle in front throwing a bottle at the cyclist behind), in the event of the driver making a sudden dangerous manouvre (like swerving accross into an overtaking cyclist), the footage is unlikely to show the nun carrying a basket of kittens who (the driver will say) stepped out in front if him.

So why do police bother to fit cameras in their car?