"Hero" cyclist sorts out 4x4 driver

Garry71

I've copied this from another forum I'm on. Just wondering what you think of it.
************************************************************************************************

I am purposely not going to name locations, none of them are within 20 miles of where we live. If anyone has a pressing need to know pm me.

My wife works in a small retail mall situated within a well known Town in the South East.One of her neighbours is a beautician, who runs her own salon.

This lady has been on her annual holiday and was due to return today, but she was 2 hours late. My wife saw her as she arrived, and in striking up a conversation the lady said she was upset and would speak to my wife later.

After closing time the story came out.......


This lady ( not my wife...) was driving to work this morning, 8 o'clock'ish when she ran into very heavy stationary traffic, not unknown on this stretch of road. (she drives a 4wd BMW btw, which may have relevance to the rest of this tale)

She was stationary in the tarffic, whereupon a cyclist rode up to the back of her car and started thumping it- for no apparent reason. She was frightened of course, but then the traffic moved on, then stopped. Now the cyclist started thumping the side of her vehicle. She pulled up on the verge, got out of the car and raised both hands to stop the cyclist to ask him what the problem was he just told her to f.... off in a menacing way. The lady then produced her phone to take a photo of him and he back handed her and her phone went flying across the road and under a lorry. (stationary) she managed to retrieve the phone and asked him what was the problem. all he did was swear at her and hit her again, she managed at this stage to call 999, but the advice was- report it to your local police station !!!!!

By this time he had left the scene.

As it happens, next to the the road was a property being worked on and a guy up on the scaffolding witnessed it all and got down to her as fast as he could, but not in time to chip in. He left all his details with this lady and is more than prepared to be a witness. Also, this particular stretch of road has loads of cctv cameras.

When she arrived at her destination she went straight to the local police station and made a statement. Hopefully it will be taken seriously.
I know someone will say, well perhaps she cut him up earlier in the journey, but I doubt it. Apparently he was a cycling advert for multi coloured lycra, the likes of which had to be seen to believed, also she had seen him previously on the same route, often getting a bit 'antsy' with 4x4's.
**************************************************************************************************
If this cyclist is a member on here, perhaps he'd like to give his side of the story?

MaxwellBygraves

Why is it titled 'Hero' Cyclist? If it is true, then he isn't a hero, sounds like a knob...

Sirius631

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

Why is it titled 'Hero' Cyclist? If it is true, then he isn't a hero, sounds like a knob...

When you call someone a 'hero', especially to their face, it is quite often done so sarcastically. It would have been clearer if 'hero' was in quotes in the title.

gasgas

what a prick! if he had a problem why not talk to her about it?!

sounds like a coward, bet it would have been a different story if it was a a fella driving!

amaferanga

I'd bet my house on the fact that the driver had an encounter with the cyclist either earlier that day or on another day. Whether she actually remembers it (or even noticed the cyclist) is another matter.

Bad form hitting her though.

clanton

This was a targetted attack - he clearly felt seriously aggrieved by something she did (rightly or wrongly.). Hitting her, even knocking the phone out of her hands is over the top though.

There are definitely two sides to the story.

Garry71

I've put quotes on "Hero" now, it was meant to be sarcastic.

I don't know if they'd had a previous encounter, he wouldn't tell her what the cause of the trouble was.

Harry B

amaferanga wrote:

I'd bet my house on the fact that the driver had an encounter with the cyclist either earlier that day or on another day. Whether she actually remembers it (or even noticed the cyclist) is another matter.

Bad form hitting her though.

Thanks I'll take your bet!

Assuming that the cyclist had an encounter with the driver at another time (huge assumption by the way) are you sure he would remember what car it was (i.e the reg number rather than the model and colour)? Alway why the assumption that she would forget?

As for the comment re "bad form" I suppose hitting her car is fine!

Yours has to be one of the most rediculous posts I've seen on here.

Now for some facts:

Yes some drivers do some pretty stupid things but they aren't always in the wrong. Cyclists also make mistakes/act like tw@ts

Just because someone drives a 4x4 doesn't mean they would forget an encounter with a cyclist

Just because someone is a women doesn't mean they would forget an encounter with a cyclist.

Now for an assumption:

You're a Daily Mail reader. :roll:

dabber

From the way this is described it would appear to me that if there had been any perceived incident between car and cyclist it would have just happened. For the cyclist to be so pumped up and aggressive it doesn't read like it was for an incident from some time back as I would have thought that might provoke a more considered confrontation by the cyclist where his perceived grievances would have been explained. Who knows!

Just my two penneth.

TMR

There's only one side of the story here, and obviously it's human nature to play down anything one really ought not to have done when recounting an event.

It seems to me that there's more to this than meets the eye, so I am going to sit on the fence.

TMR

Harry B wrote:

Now for an assumption:

You're a Daily Mail reader. :roll:

What's wrong with the Daily Mail? It's a good souce of celebrity news...

clanton

Harry B wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

I'd bet my house on the fact that the driver had an encounter with the cyclist either earlier that day or on another day. Whether she actually remembers it (or even noticed the cyclist) is another matter.

Bad form hitting her though.

Thanks I'll take your bet!

Assuming that the cyclist had an encounter with the driver at another time (huge assumption by the way) are you sure he would remember what car it was (i.e the reg number rather than the model and colour)? Alway why the assumption that she would forget?

As for the comment re "bad form" I suppose hitting her car is fine!

Yours has to be one of the most rediculous posts I've seen on here.

Now for some facts:

Yes some drivers do some pretty stupid things but they aren't always in the wrong. Cyclists also make mistakes/act like tw@ts

Just because someone drives a 4x4 doesn't mean they would forget an encounter with a cyclist

Just because someone is a women doesn't mean they would forget an encounter with a cyclist.

Now for an assumption:

You're a Daily Mail reader. :roll:

Err = Daily Mail readers are uniformly cyclist haters - so would always automatically support the driver.

The only "fact" we have here is that there are no facts. An incident has taken place, we have one version of that incident, reported third or fourth hand. Everything that follows is assumption.

Unless the cyclist is a dyed in the wool loonie who attacks BMW's then there was some provocation to this attack. The cyclist is in the wrong for striking the woman. As to whether or not the rest of his reaction can be justified by whatever took place before - we don't know. It is likely there is some shared blame but as to how to apportion it we have no clue. Whether you support the cyclist or the driver you have nothing to back up either position.

Harry B

Important articles like this are just fine

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... beach.html

This also

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... -body.html

Mustn't forget this as well

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... -body.html

Comments like this are less useful

DISGRACEFUL RESULT! I wonder how much the prisoners are going to get for being denied the vote. Perhaps some rich person might feel moved to help this poor badly done by lady, since she has no right of appeal.
- La La, Lancs., 03/2/2011 10:

amaferanga

Harry B wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

I'd bet my house on the fact that the driver had an encounter with the cyclist either earlier that day or on another day. Whether she actually remembers it (or even noticed the cyclist) is another matter.

Bad form hitting her though.

Thanks I'll take your bet!

Assuming that the cyclist had an encounter with the driver at another time (huge assumption by the way) are you sure he would remember what car it was (i.e the reg number rather than the model and colour)? Alway why the assumption that she would forget?

As for the comment re "bad form" I suppose hitting her car is fine!

Yours has to be one of the most rediculous posts I've seen on here.

Now for some facts:

Yes some drivers do some pretty stupid things but they aren't always in the wrong. Cyclists also make mistakes/act like tw@ts

Just because someone drives a 4x4 doesn't mean they would forget an encounter with a cyclist

Just because someone is a women doesn't mean they would forget an encounter with a cyclist.

Now for an assumption:

You're a Daily Mail reader. :roll:

I didn't say hitting the car was fine. Fact.

I didn't say cyclists don't make mistakes. Fact.

I didn't say the encounter would be forgotten because the driver was a woman/drives a 4x4. Fact.

What a f@cking muppet you are. Fact.

Harry B

amaferanga wrote:

Harry B wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

I'd bet my house on the fact that the driver had an encounter with the cyclist either earlier that day or on another day. Whether she actually remembers it (or even noticed the cyclist) is another matter.

Bad form hitting her though.

Thanks I'll take your bet!

Assuming that the cyclist had an encounter with the driver at another time (huge assumption by the way) are you sure he would remember what car it was (i.e the reg number rather than the model and colour)? Alway why the assumption that she would forget?

As for the comment re "bad form" I suppose hitting her car is fine!

Yours has to be one of the most rediculous posts I've seen on here.

Now for some facts:

Yes some drivers do some pretty stupid things but they aren't always in the wrong. Cyclists also make mistakes/act like tw@ts

Just because someone drives a 4x4 doesn't mean they would forget an encounter with a cyclist

Just because someone is a women doesn't mean they would forget an encounter with a cyclist.

Now for an assumption:

You're a Daily Mail reader. :roll:

I didn't say hitting the car was fine. Fact.

I didn't say cyclists don't make mistakes. Fact.

I didn't say the encounter would be forgotten because the driver was a woman/drives a 4x4. Fact.

What a f@cking muppet you are. Fact.

You make rather a lot of assumptions though from the brief facts provided. Hopefully this may help you to see things clearer

http://sb.thefreedictionary.com/?Word=assumption&mode=

GiantMike

I'd say getting half a story from another website makes it very unlikely any of it is remotely true.

On a seperate note, mate may have overheard somebody saying they we're going to do something really bad. Was it anybody on here?

Garry71

GiantMike wrote:

I'd say getting half a story from another website makes it very unlikely any of it is remotely true.

How do you work that out? It isn't true because you didn't see it?

Aggieboy

bails87

So a lone woman rings the police and says "there's a man physcally assaulting me right now" and the police pretty much ignore it? How queer.... :?

Garry71

bails87 wrote:

So a lone woman rings the police and says "there's a man physcally assaulting me right now" and the police pretty much ignore it? How queer.... :?

That was the reason it was originally posted on the other forum, because of the police response to the incident.

Ginjafro

So, let me get this right. There was a Chinese woman in a pink Landrover who was attacked by a whispering alien riding a green Tricycle......

WTF !!

slunker

At the end of the day, you can be a cyclist a BMW driver a politician, footballer but it's the pepole who are the dicks regardless of what the drive, cycle or do for a living. It's just human nature. There are dicks and there are good people.

Harry B

slunker wrote:

At the end of the day, you can be a cyclist a BMW driver a politician, footballer but it's the pepole who are the dicks regardless of what the drive, cycle or do for a living. It's just human nature. There are dicks and there are good people.

Wot Slunker said

---

End of thread

---

mcj78

Interesting story, however without more (any?) facts it's all pointless speculation - could have been the "cyclist" was an escaped mental patient with a penchant for bad lycra & assaulting women in 4x4s... could have been the beautician had a double vodka for breakfast & knocked the guy on his arse earlier up the road whilst applying her make up in the rear view mirror & having a fly doobie before facing the daily grind. Maybe it didn't happen at all, maybe someone made it up to villify cyclists. Guess we'll never know...

amaferanga

Harry B wrote:

You make rather a lot of assumptions though from the brief facts provided. Hopefully this may help you to see things clearer

http://sb.thefreedictionary.com/?Word=assumption&mode=

I offered an opinion. No more no less.

Are you really so stupid that you can't see that we all make assumptions all the time so there's nothing unusual in what I did?

Why are you so quick to jump to the defence of a 4x4 driver anyway? Can they not lie or be sparing with the facts sometimes same as everyone else?

Jez mon

amaferanga wrote:

Why are you so quick to jump to the defence of a 4x4 driver anyway? Can they not lie or be sparing with the facts sometimes same as everyone else?

Why are you so quick to jump to the defense of a cyclist, who on the (admittedly limited) evidence here, behaved like a complete tool!

Harry B

amaferanga wrote:

Harry B wrote:

You make rather a lot of assumptions though from the brief facts provided. Hopefully this may help you to see things clearer

http://sb.thefreedictionary.com/?Word=assumption&mode=

I offered an opinion. No more no less.

Are you really so stupid that you can't see that we all make assumptions all the time so there's nothing unusual in what I did?

Why are you so quick to jump to the defence of a 4x4 driver anyway? Can they not lie or be sparing with the facts sometimes same as everyone else?

1. You are convinced that there had been a previous encounter - "I'll bet my house on it"

2. You imply that she may not have remembered or "even noticed" it - why, because she is a women or because she was driving a 4x4?

Homer J

Maybe she jumped a red light

Harry B

Maybe she jumped the red light to try and run down the disabled child who was crossing the road at the time

senoj

Maybe she had a previous smash in the car,and the kind cyclist was trying to tap the bent metal flat..Ill bet my Bungalow on it..
Move over on that fence.

GiantMike

Garry71 wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

I'd say getting half a story from another website makes it very unlikely any of it is remotely true.

How do you work that out? It isn't true because you didn't see it?

I've actually LOL'd for the first time in ages.

Please please tell me you believe the story as it was told. Please. Then come round and buy my Giant Anthem X2. It's the bike Contador won the 1943 Tour De France on. I've even got his tu-tu from the same race, you know the yellow one he always wore. At least that's what somebody wrote on the internet and I'm too gullible to think that maybe, just maybe, people may exaggerate when they tell a story, and exaggerate when they re-tell it. If anybody believes the story as told, they are an idiot.

Please sned me your bank details, I have a lot of money for you.