Motorbiker punched off my wing mirror deliberately - What can I do?

dannyrst

I find it funny there is a thread about an Aston Martin getting keyed where everyone slates the person causing criminal damage, yet in this thread people are trying to justify criminal damage.

ChumLee

dannyrst wrote: »

I find it funny there is a thread about an Aston Martin getting keyed where everyone slates the person causing criminal damage, yet in this thread people are trying to justify criminal damage.

Only the two wheeled organ donors.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

dannyrst wrote: »

I find it funny there is a thread about an Aston Martin getting keyed where everyone slates the person causing criminal damage, yet in this thread people are trying to justify criminal damage.

That's because you have mistaken MSE for a place of logical and reasoned discussion.

Mercdriver

IanMSpencer wrote: »

That's because you have mistaken MSE for a place of logical and reasoned discussion.

point me to a forum where such discussion happens and I will have difficulty believing such a place exists...

facade

ChumLee wrote: »

Only the two wheeled organ donors.

On the off-chance that you really don't understand.

1) the OP turns across someone's path, causing a near accident. The OP is in the wrong (and I think they realise this)

2) The motorcyclist responds by chasing the OP and ultimately punching off their mirror. The motorcyclist is in the wrong for this action.( no question)

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Correct legal actions for the motorcyclist would be

a) continue with his journey, and forget the whole thing.
b) make a complaint to the Police. If he can support the complaint with some evidence (a helmet cam would be good, more & more motorcycles have them) then depending on what actually happened, it could result in a prosecution, or an invitation to attend a safe driving course. This results in a lot of inconvenience & hassle for both parties.


Instead, he took the direct action route, and "punished" the driver by damaging the car. This is wrong, and inexcusable.

However, it has happened, so now it is time to move on.

As a driver, I would be more concerned why I had failed to see the 'bike (also what could have happened if I had been a fraction of a second later) and in taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen again, than about getting the biker to pay for the mirror.

ChumLee

facade wrote: »

On the off-chance that you really don't understand.

1) the OP turns across someone's path, causing a near accident. The OP is in the wrong (and I think they realise this)

2) The motorcyclist responds by chasing the OP and ultimately punching off their mirror. The motorcyclist is in the wrong for this action.( no question)

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Correct legal actions for the motorcyclist would be

a) continue with his journey, and forget the whole thing.
b) make a complaint to the Police. If he can support the complaint with some evidence (a helmet cam would be good, more & more motorcycles have them) then depending on what actually happened, it could result in a prosecution, or an invitation to attend a safe driving course. This results in a lot of inconvenience & hassle for both parties.


Instead, he took the direct action route, and "punished" the driver by damaging the car. This is wrong, and inexcusable.

However, it has happened, so now it is time to move on.

As a driver, I would be more concerned why I had failed to see the 'bike (also what could have happened if I had been a fraction of a second later) and in taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen again, than about getting the biker to pay for the mirror.

Thanks for that.

I still stand by my comment about the organ donors defending the fellow organ donor.

Herzlos

facade wrote: »

On the off-chance that you really don't understand.

1) the OP turns across someone's path, causing a near accident. The OP is in the wrong (and I think they realise this)
...
As a driver, I would be more concerned why I had failed to see the 'bike (also what could have happened if I had been a fraction of a second later) and in taking steps to ensure it doesn't happen again, than about getting the biker to pay for the mirror.

You are, of course, adamant that the biker wasn't in the wrong here, and was cut up by the driver. No evidence for that exists.

*maybe* the driver was in the wrong, *maybe* the biker was in the wrong, *maybe* it was no-one. That doesn't matter here.

ChumLee

Herzlos wrote: »

You are, of course, adamant that the biker wasn't in the wrong here, and was cut up by the driver. No evidence for that exists.

*maybe* the driver was in the wrong, *maybe* the biker was in the wrong, *maybe* it was no-one. That doesn't matter here.

Correct and has nothing to do with the original question.

BeenThroughItAll

ChumLee wrote: »

Thanks for that.

I still stand by my comment about the organ donors defending the fellow organ donor.

Not at all. Read my previous posts on this thread and you'll see one 'organ donor' who thinks this particular one is a c*nt.

facade

Herzlos wrote: »

You are, of course, adamant that the biker wasn't in the wrong here, and was cut up by the driver. No evidence for that exists.

*maybe* the driver was in the wrong, *maybe* the biker was in the wrong, *maybe* it was no-one. That doesn't matter here.

The driver turned across the path of the 'bike, and admits to not seeing it except through the side window.

Doesn't matter whether it was a motorbike, cyclist, tractor, wheelbarrow, horse & cart, lorry, bus, car or steamroller, they still turned across the path of another vehicle and caused it to take evasive action, that would not have been necessary if they hadn't turned, therefore they are in the wrong.