Threat from motorist

bradford

Tonymufc wrote:

Mithras wrote:

[JOB HEAD ON] I wouldn't advise anybody enticing a driver out of a car to sort things out Queensbury Rules Style. Firstly, it makes you the aggressor and whilst most drivers will not get out of the car and the few who do think better of a confrontation. That leaves a small percentage who will fancy thier chances. This leaves you open to either a good kicking or a nice warm feeling (not the I'm hard as nails me feeling). The one you get around the back of your collar followed by the nice shiny wrist bracelets. Best case scenario is that you win the fight and get charged with assault. You could lose and still get charged with affray.
Very worst case, they don't get out of thier tin boxes, they just run you over.

If you have to defend yourself because some irate idot decides to have a pop at you thats fine, you can even launch a pre-emptive strike if you can justify it. NEVER EVER instigate the old fisticufs what ever the reason! [JOB HEAD OFF]

Like I said, I'm not encouraging any sort of violence, but the law fails the law abiding public.Take the case of the trucker that killed the cyclist and threw his bike over a hedge row to conceal his crime. He was given a two year sentence. Rob a bank and you get ten years. Go figure. This isn't a personal attack towards police officers but the useless laws they enforce. A driver tries to kill you with his car so you offer the little sh1t out. Give him a slap and its the cyclist thats gonna get done. What a great country we live in. Remember everyone crime does pay because the law is always on the criminals side.

+1 The laws in this country are a disgrace at the moment :roll:

Zachariah

Actually it seems like they're about right. What you've got to appreciate is that the law would, quite rightly, treat what you consider as one incident as two distinct events.

One is where the idiot driver uses his car to try and kill you. This is a serious offence and you have every right to defend yourself with whatever force you consider necessary at the time.

The key is 'at the time'. Once the attack is over and your life is not in danger from his actions, by calling out the driver you are creating a new sequence of events. You are now the aggressor.

To work the law in your favour as a cyclist, you would have to respond immediately while the car is approaching, a difficult but not impossible feat. Carry something hard and scratchy to swipe at such a car, and you would have the legitimate defence that you feared for your life. If the driver gets out and attacks in response, he is still the aggressor.

merkin

The law would also make a distinction between an idle threat and attempted murder. In the vast majority of incidents of this nature the rants of an irate motorist are just idle threats.
If indeed a driver tries to kill you with his car it is attempted murder and despite what some people seem to believe is an incredibly rare incident. What is more common unfortunately is dangerous driving which while not having the intent to kill you can have more serious consequences.

downfader

First rule of self preservation is escape. I would never advocate beating anyone or fighting, but we've all lost our rag with drivers I'm sure at worst. I am of the beleif that if someone were to physicaly threaten me and I have little option of escape then, yes, I will retalliate.

On cameras. I would say a visible camera can be a good deterrant. Smaller bullet cams are less easy to spot though, esp in the dark. Cameras are pretty easy to hide though, so people tend to act naturally around you.

Mithras

iPad wrote:

Making assumptions from this that you are a member of the Police, can I ask you a question?

I used to study Karate and our chief instructor was a senior police officer. He used to inform us of protocols regarding the law and violence / self defence. I remember him telling me that if your are in "fear for your life" you are legally able to use what ever force is required to defend yourself (he did point out that should you cause someone serious harm or fatly wound them, it would be difficult to prove how in fear of your life you actually were).

My question is...if someone is threatening to run you over with their car, then would that constitute a threat on your life with a (potentially) deadly weapon (i.e a car) and in that case, would you [theoretically] have the right to defend yourself, using whatever force is necessary?

If someone threatened to kill me in the town centre, I would do what ever is required to take that threat away, which would involve me not stopping until one of us was unconscious...!
That said, I would in no condone violence, but I would always defend myself...(I once ended up as a victim of violence, and I made sure there is no way that will ever happen again).

There is nothing to stop anybody using whatever skills they have gained either through martial arts or military training etc. The Big word here is "JUSTIFY". The problem is it's not justifying something to yourself it is the fact that you could have to justify your actions two a group of 12 people who were not there at the time, many of whom have probably never been involved in anything more scary than burning the toast in the morning. So in the scenario you mentioned, your only scope to defend yourself would be after he had tried to run you over with the car. That is not defence, it's revenge. If however he gets out of the car carrying a wheel brace and you believe he is about to use it on you then yes you can justify using force. Remember you will have to justify in a court of law the course of action you took

sicknote

In a case like this, one of my teachers put it like this ( yes I do martial arts ).

It is better to be judged be 12 than buried by 6.

bradford

Sicknote wrote:

In a case like this, one of my teachers put it like this ( yes I do martial arts ).

It is better to be judged be 12 than buried by 6.

How Shakespearian of you!

always_tyred

Zachariah wrote:

To work the law in your favour as a cyclist, you would have to respond immediately while the car is approaching, a difficult but not impossible feat. Carry something hard and scratchy to swipe at such a car, and you would have the legitimate defence that you feared for your life. If the driver gets out and attacks in response, he is still the aggressor.

I think if you carry around a sharp object with the intention of scratching any car that threatens you, and eventually scratch a car that threatens you, you would probably find yourself in a wee bit of bother.

Children, don't sew sandpaper to your gloves. :shock:

Wirral

Ignore the threat I doubt they are anything but threats! You have to look at from both sides (even though they made be wrong). The motorist thinks you are holding him up, you tell him to fuck off, you obviously continue to make eye contact.
Yes, from you description I believe you do not deserve this treatment, but the driver feels aggrieved by your actions.
To put it simply, whatever a driver says to you, gestures they make, try to ignore it/them.
It’s not our job to be judge and jury.
Further I have to say reading this thread it’s very aggressive.