I think i was just threatened with death...

Rockbuddy

jashburnham wrote:

Rockbuddy wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The motorist was a pr!ck.

Woah there DDD, I know this is a cycling forum and I am all for cars taking us seriously on the road but I can't really say the car driver did much wrong here. If I was driving the car and someone was pulling into the lane I was in whithout indicating as I approached, bike or car, I would prob beep them to let them know I was there / that they did something stupid. I may even tell them that they should maneuver more carefully for their own safety, aswell as mine. Then to be called a c#*t for his troubles!?! As for earphones they are a stupid thing to be wearing in traffic and illustrate the point of not fully being aware. How many times does someone state 'the ped was wearing earphones' and didn't hear me shout to them etc. I'm not saying the driver wasn't impatient but clearly not all his fault!

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

Like the pic but I ain't trying to start a fight just putting in my 2p worth

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

Ken Dodd once said that if you tell a joke in Edinburgh the audience will laugh out loud, but in London the just won't get it.

You'd need quite a loud amplifier for people to hear the joke in London if you tell it in Edinburgh

cat_with_no_tail

Rockbuddy wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The motorist was a pr!ck.

Woah there DDD, I know this is a cycling forum and I am all for cars taking us seriously on the road but I can't really say the car driver did much wrong here. If I was driving the car and someone was pulling into the lane I was in whithout indicating as I approached, bike or car, I would prob beep them to let them know I was there / that they did something stupid. I may even tell them that they should maneuver more carefully for their own safety, aswell as mine. Then to be called a c#*t for his troubles!?! As for earphones they are a stupid thing to be wearing in traffic and illustrate the point of not fully being aware. How many times does someone state 'the ped was wearing earphones' and didn't hear me shout to them etc. I'm not saying the driver wasn't impatient but clearly not all his fault!

+1 on this. If it was the other way round and a motorist with stereo on too loud pulled out in front of a cyclist to get round a bus without indicating, then called the cyclist a c**t I feel we would be calling the motorist a prick again.

[Rant]
Wether in a car, on a bike or anything else, some people need to realize that they don't own the road. Take your bloody headphones out and indicate. The argument of "it's not safe to take my hand off the bars for a second to indicate" does not wash with me, it's complete horse poo. If you cannot take your hands off the bars for a second to indicate without crashing into a bus, get some bloody stabilizers. Honestly, I sometimes think some people on here are as bad as the motorists they always bang on about.
[/Rant]

Am I saying it was all OPs fault, no I am not, but without being there, I don't think anyone should be calling anyone else anything.

spursn17

Spasypaddy perceived it as a threat, and he was there.

The driver was a knob.

spen666

spursn17 wrote:

Spasypaddy perceived it as a threat, and he was there.

The driver was a knob.

It may be that the driver perceived Spaspaddy as a threat.

Just because someone perceives something, it doesn't mean it was actually that



For example - i perceive your last post as a racist threat to kill me - that doesn't mean it was a racist threat to kill me

spasypaddy

woah woah woah, im quite fortunate i dont commute in heavy traffic, and there is no law saying you shouldnt be wearing earphones until there is i am doing nothing wrong by cycling with them in. So someone driving along singing along to their music in their car with it too loud to hear the outside world is allowed to do this why shouldnt i? Please dont turn this into a cycling with earphone thread. Its a personal thing.

I only have them on loud enough to stop the wind which actually increases my ability to hear the traffic.

Also he threatened me, simple as that. You weren't there you didnt hear the tone of his voice.

I also agree that signalling is important and signal whenever i feel it is necessary, on this occasion it wasnt necessary there was also double the width of me and my bike between the bus and the car. It wasn't a dangerous manoeuvre otherwise i wouldn't have done it. I dont go out of my way to put myself and others in danger.

Moomin23

Given the relatively low profile of the white bike thing outside of the cycling community, has anyone stopped to consider he may have been a fellow cyclist offering advice and showing concern??

I treat the roads like every car driver is trying to kill me, stay cautious, indicate wherever necessary and basically never give them the excuse to hurt you, because believe it or not, in a road war with a one ton piece of metal gunning for you, you're gonna lose, no matter how in the right you are.

I've been known to make my feelings known, but only when I have actually had my life put in danger, but wing mirrors can be fixed, spines, skulls and limbs take longer to fix and hurt more!!!

sebastiandangerfield

Spasy, wear your earphones. It's a matter of opinion and ultimately it's you that'l be hurt should the worst happen so it's your risk. Everyone has their own level of acceptable risk and for some, they want to be able to hear everything clearly, others are happy to listen to music. Simple.

As for the actual incident; you said you expected they guy to beep at you. That indicates to me that you caused him to brake, move out of your way or alter course in some way. If not, he wouldn't have beeped at you. The simple fact of the matter is the road traffic act states that owing to your presence you caused another driver to alter course or speed and (in a car obviously) that could be construed as careless driving, so why expect people to avoid you on a bike?

You really cant expect other road users to adapt to your presence on the road. DDD, you starterd a thread a few weeks ago along similar lines that you thought you had enough time and the guy should have avioded you. I would never expect anyone to avoid me as traffic law realy doesn't work that way and more importantly, why would I ever want to leave my fate to someone I don't know getting out of the way instead of just not being in the wrong in the first place?

Also, it was mentioned before but a statement like that could never be a threat.

I can totally see where you're comming from and confrontations on the road are always difficult to pass opinion on but whatever way I look at it I just can't agree that the driver was in the wrong.

spasypaddy

seb i get beeped 5 or 6 times a journey for just being a cyclist. i got beeped today when i was riding only a metre from the kerb on 2 lane road for no reason whatsoever.

I didnt even know what the white bike thing was until he threatened me with it and it clicked into place.

As someone thats had 3 days in hospital from being hit by a car when using a cycle lane 2 years ago and has a scar the width of his knee and quad due to it, believe me i dont put myself in unnecessary danger when riding.

sebastiandangerfield

Then why did you expect him to beep? You must have done something to make you expect him to be annoyed?

AndyManc

sebastiandangerfield wrote:

Then why did you expect him to beep? You must have done something to make you expect him to be annoyed?

Would you expect a death threat, which it clearly was.



.

spasypaddy

sebastiandangerfield wrote:

Then why did you expect him to beep? You must have done something to make you expect him to be annoyed?

because i always expect to be beeped when i do something on the road, be it turn left, turn right, breathe.

seriously i attract beepers

sebastiandangerfield

Andy, i'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're saying. If you mean, would you expect someone to threaten to kill you after an incident like that? No I wouldn't, but it really wasn't a death threat, mearly a statement of fact. A death threat has to have some amount of immediacy about it. Mearly saying If you arent carefull x will happen could not be a threat to your life however it is said. If I said to you, "If you arent carefull doing something dangerous then you'll die an horrific painfull death" I'm simply stating fact, it's true, if you arent carefull, accidents happen.

Spasy, If you do nothing wrong you probably wouldn't be beeped at all the time. I'm lucky enough to be able to ride most of the time and of course, I get beeped at sometimes. Sometimes i've made a mistake, sometimes someone else has but I cant say it happens as frequently as that and I really do ride alot.

doog442

I didnt understand the white bike threat so apologise...but even so its not a threat to kill....especially when he then legs it !!

perhaps they are beeping to let you know of there presence?or perhaps they are all a bunch of t**sers (can i say that on here)

you attract beepers like i attract loose dogs but dont let ANYONE hold that against you 8)

AndyManc

sebastiandangerfield wrote:

Andy, i'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're saying. If you mean, would you expect someone to threaten to kill you after an incident like that? No I wouldn't, but it really wasn't a death threat, mearly a statement of fact. A death threat has to have some amount of immediacy about it. .

The 'statement' from the driver followed a bout of verbal abuse, so I would imagine ""If you aren't careful you'll be a white bike chained to the railings" would have been said in an equally threatening manner and wasn't said as a form of helpful advice.

Clearly spasypaddy didn't feel reassured by his 'caring' words of wisdom, the police often ask victims if they felt intimidated by what was said, that is often enough to make a formal charge.



.

Rockbuddy

Maybe wrong but I am not so sure it is actually legal to wear earphones while cycling on the road. Don't actually know but I think it's illegal to wear earphone while on a motor bike or driving a car, isn't it. If you strapped a stereo player to you handle bars that would be a different matter (although might cause some drag ). Anyone care to correct me on this???

AndyManc

doog442 wrote:

I didnt understand the white bike threat so apologise...but even so its not a threat to kill....especially when he then legs it !!

Just because an immediate attempt to kill didn't take place doesn't mean it wasn't a genuine threat.

It often leaves a lingering fear in the victim, which is more often that not the usual purpose of encounters like this.

.

sebastiandangerfield

The 'statement' from the driver followed a bout of verbal abuse, so I would imagine ""If you aren't careful you'll be a white bike chained to the railings" would have been said in an equally threatening manner and wasn't said as a form of helpful advice.

Clearly spasypaddy didn't feel reassured by his 'caring' words of wisdom, the police often ask victims if they felt intimidated by what was said, that is often enough to make a formal charge.

Indeed, the verbal abuse from both parties, unless my interpretation of see you next tuesday is wrong. The thretening manner in which words are said is purely opinion and would not give any credibility when no actual immediate threat is made.

I use the term "statement" as in a statement of fact which is what the driver made as opposed to your interpretaion of caring words of wisdom. Police do ask victims if they felt intimidated when in certain situations like public order or threats to kill but only when an actual crime has occured. Simply feeling intimidated even though no actual threat to kill has been made would make it into a threat to kill.

Some crime may have been commited by the driver like a public order offence like section 4 or possibly 4 (a) of the public order act but as spasy has already stated he also swore back to the driver so he too would have commited the offence. The offence of threats to kill has most definately not been commited. To save argument, from the CPS website;

Aggravating & Mitigating Factors
Any use of violence or imminent threat
Written or oral threat
Premeditated or spontaneous
Whether series of offences
More than one offender or victim

And from the actual definition;

Threats to kill
From CrimeLine from Andrew Keogh
Jump to: navigation, search
Threats to kill, contrary to Offences Against the Person Act 1861 section 16 as substituted by Schedule 12of the Criminal Law Act 1977:

(1) A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years
(Archbold 19-124 to 19-129)

Threats can be calculated and premeditated, or said in the heat of the moment. The defendant does not have to have the intention to kill but there has to be an intent that the person to whom the threat has been issued would fear it would be carried out. Where it is doubtful whether the threat carried the necessary intent a charge under Section 4 Public Order Act 1986 may be appropriate.

As stated, driving off after the incident, not making any direct threat and even then the threat, if any was very vague.

Maybe wrong but I am not so sure it is actually legal to wear earphones while cycling on the road. Don't actually know but I think it's illegal to wear earphone while on a motor bike or driving a car, isn't it. If you strapped a stereo player to you handle bars that would be a different matter (although might cause some drag ). Anyone care to correct me on this???

It's legal but if it was causing a lack of control it could become illegal. Similar to eating at the wheel, there is no specific offence but if it can be proven that there was a failure to maintain proper control of the car then this is an offence.

Hope this clears it up.

doog442

AndyManc wrote:

doog442 wrote:

I didnt understand the white bike threat so apologise...but even so its not a threat to kill....especially when he then legs it !!

Just because an immediate attempt to kill didn't take place doesn't mean it wasn't a genuine threat.

It often leaves a lingering fear in the victim, which is more often that not the usual purpose of encounters like this.

.

its the intent.. of the offender to belive the OP will think that the threat will be carried out

which is pie in the sky in this case.....tie someone up, pour petrol over them and threaten to light it and you may go somewhere towards proving this offence

this doesnt come within a million miles
[/b]

Rockbuddy

sebastiandangerfield wrote:

Maybe wrong but I am not so sure it is actually legal to wear earphones while cycling on the road. Don't actually know but I think it's illegal to wear earphone while on a motor bike or driving a car, isn't it. If you strapped a stereo player to you handle bars that would be a different matter (although might cause some drag ). Anyone care to correct me on this???

It's legal but if it was causing a lack of control it could become illegal. Similar to eating at the wheel, there is no specific offence but if it can be proven that there was a failure to maintain proper control of the car then this is an offence.

Hope this clears it up.

Mmm, I guess - makes sense anyways. Let me guess you is a lawyer or sumink right???

AndyManc

sebastiandangerfield wrote:

I use the term "statement" as in a statement of fact which is what the driver made as opposed to your interpretaion of caring words of wisdom.

The driver didn't make a statement of fact, it may be a possibility or even a probability but the only way he could guarantee it being a 'fact' would be if he himself acted upon it.

To me, it was a clear threat.

Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but 10 lawyers will give 10 interpretations of the law.

It's doubtful the police would have done anything about it because this kind of incident happens all the time, but the 1 time in 10,000 they don't do anything may result in a serious offence.



.

sebastiandangerfield

Or summink!!

I not quite but I'm trained. Law bores the life out of me though!

sebastiandangerfield

I'm greaved to reply, the above quotes direct from the CPS website and the exact definition as it comes from Archbold prove it is not a threat to kill.

You're argument even agrees with what i'm saying;

the only way he could guarantee it being a 'fact' would be if he himself acted upon it.

This is exactly what I'm saying, he made no action to make spasy think that there was going to be any imminent threat of violence. If he did act upon it, even to intimate that the threat was real then the offence would be complete.

spen666

spasypaddy wrote:

seb i get beeped 5 or 6 times a journey for just being a cyclist. ......

Ever thought that you may be attracting this sort of behaviour?

I ride between 25 and 50 miles every day in London and can count on one hand the number of times someone beeps at me in a week, not per journey

always_tyred

spen666 wrote:

spasypaddy wrote:

seb i get beeped 5 or 6 times a journey for just being a cyclist. ......

Ever thought that you may be attracting this sort of behaviour?

I ride between 25 and 50 miles every day in London and can count on one hand the number of times someone beeps at me in a week, not per journey

Have to agree. Something not right here. You shouldn't be annoying that many motorists.

Hang on, you don't live in Cairo do you? They wire the brake pedal to the horn there.


with thanks to Michael Palin for that joke