More details emerge of Australian road rage attack – but raise another question

vonhelmet wrote:

And then they might feel that it was perfectly reasonable to run you off the road and throw your bike into a hedge, and that you should count yourself lucky that’s all they did.

Are we seeing how this works yet?

I think so.

If a situation occurs with someone who's exhibiting signs of being overly protective of a bit of heavy machinery, the best course of action is to strike, pre-emptively and repeatedly, until they're incapable of attacking you with it.

That's where you're going, yes? 

davel wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

And then they might feel that it was perfectly reasonable to run you off the road and throw your bike into a hedge, and that you should count yourself lucky that’s all they did.

Are we seeing how this works yet?

I think so.

If a situation occurs with someone who's exhibiting signs of being overly protective of a bit of heavy machinery, the best course of action is to strike, pre-emptively and repeatedly, until they're incapable of attacking you with it.

That's where you're going, yes? 

The bit I don't get is why would you use the same said property that was damaged by another person as the weapon, therefore risking more damage.

I wouldn't smash you over the head with my favourite Picasso because you'd got too close to it, or indeed damaged it slightly. I might let the dogs out though...

vonhelmet wrote:

As ever, without knowing the full story, it’s difficult to know what to think. What we do know is that the cyclist had deliberately damaged the drivers property. That doesn’t excuse what happened, but it does explain it to an extent.

I'd say it doesn't go anywhere near explaining it. It's just a fucking car and just a little scratchypoo.

How can running someone of the road be supported because of damage to property?

don simon wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

As ever, without knowing the full story, it’s difficult to know what to think. What we do know is that the cyclist had deliberately damaged the drivers property. That doesn’t excuse what happened, but it does explain it to an extent.

I'd say it doesn't go anywhere near explaining it. It's just a fucking car and just a little scratchypoo.

How can running someone of the road be supported because of damage to property?

I said it explains it to an extent. I said it doesn’t excuse it. The two are very different. It can’t be supported, no, but the chain of events is clear and comprehensible. It’s an overreaction, but one that’s a whole lot more understandable than just running someone off the road, as the story was originally presented.

Equally, the cyclist’s decision to scratch the car because of whatever unknown event may be explainable, but it is equally inexcusable. What excuse is there for wantonly damaging someone else’s property?

vonhelmet wrote:

don simon wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

As ever, without knowing the full story, it’s difficult to know what to think. What we do know is that the cyclist had deliberately damaged the drivers property. That doesn’t excuse what happened, but it does explain it to an extent.

I'd say it doesn't go anywhere near explaining it. It's just a fucking car and just a little scratchypoo.

How can running someone of the road be supported because of damage to property?

I said it explains it to an extent. I said it doesn’t excuse it. The two are very different. It can’t be supported, no, but the chain of events is clear and comprehensible. It’s an overreaction, but one that’s a whole lot more understandable than just running someone off the road, as the story was originally presented.

Equally, the cyclist’s decision to scratch the car because of whatever unknown event may be explainable, but it is equally inexcusable. What excuse is there for wantonly damaging someone else’s property?

Actually they're not that different.

vonhelmet wrote:

Equally, the cyclist’s decision to scratch the car because of whatever unknown event may be explainable, but it is equally inexcusable. What excuse is there for wantonly damaging someone else’s property?

Well, the driver's complete lack of concern at knocking off a cyclist has already been demonstrated once, so it is entirely possible he'd already tried to do it before, and if someone had tried to knock me off, I would be very tempted and feel completely justified in scratching the object they had used to threaten my life.  And they should think themselves lucky if that was all I did.

If you love your car more than you value someone's life, you need help.  As the Dalai Lama summed it up so superbly "Things were made to be used and people to be loved.  The whole problem with the world is that things are loved and people are used."

[/quote]

I'd say it doesn't go anywhere near explaining it. It's just a fucking car and just a little scratchypoo.

How can running someone of the road be supported because of damage to property?

[/quote]

One wonders how you would feel if someone put a brick through your house window, damaged your bike, or even scratched your body. It’s just glass, it’s just a bike, you’ll heal.......!

Regardless of what the arsehole driver did or didn’t do there is no excuse for retaliation damage, certainly no excuse for the driver to retaliate they way he did. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

Quote:

I'd say it doesn't go anywhere near explaining it. It's just a fucking car and just a little scratchypoo.

How can running someone off the road be supported because of damage to property?

One wonders how you would feel if someone put a brick through your house window, damaged your bike, or even scratched your body. It’s just glass, it’s just a bike, you’ll heal.......!

Regardless of what the arsehole driver did or didn’t do there is no excuse for retaliation damage, certainly no excuse for the driver to retaliate they way he did. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Point well missed!

don simon wrote:

Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

Quote:

I'd say it doesn't go anywhere near explaining it. It's just a fucking car and just a little scratchypoo.

How can running someone off the road be supported because of damage to property?

One wonders how you would feel if someone put a brick through your house window, damaged your bike, or even scratched your body. It’s just glass, it’s just a bike, you’ll heal.......!

Regardless of what the arsehole driver did or didn’t do there is no excuse for retaliation damage, certainly no excuse for the driver to retaliate they way he did. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Point well missed!

I’d say you rather missed the point in saying “it’s just a fucking car and a little scratchypoo”. I do not condone the drivers actions at all, putting someone life at risk, but also you are minimising the consequences of criminal damage. It is a crime for a reason. A metal deep scratch across multiple panels could cost thousands, or even in to five figures if the whole car has to be re-sprayed. Perhaps you are wealthy enough not to worry about such things, but for most people having to pay out a lot of money, even if it is just insurance excess and lost no claims, to fix damage caused by someone else is not trivial and trivialising the criminal actions of the cyclist helps no one. Both committed serious offences and were both dealt with appropriately.

John Smith wrote:

don simon wrote:

Yorkshie Whippet wrote:

Quote:

I'd say it doesn't go anywhere near explaining it. It's just a fucking car and just a little scratchypoo.

How can running someone off the road be supported because of damage to property?

One wonders how you would feel if someone put a brick through your house window, damaged your bike, or even scratched your body. It’s just glass, it’s just a bike, you’ll heal.......!

Regardless of what the arsehole driver did or didn’t do there is no excuse for retaliation damage, certainly no excuse for the driver to retaliate they way he did. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Point well missed!

 

I’d say you rather missed the point in saying “it’s just a fucking car and a little scratchypoo”. I do not condone the drivers actions at all, putting someone life at risk, but also you are minimising the consequences of criminal damage. It is a crime for a reason. A metal deep scratch across multiple panels could cost thousands, or even in to five figures if the whole car has to be re-sprayed. Perhaps you are wealthy enough not to worry about such things, but for most people having to pay out a lot of money, even if it is just insurance excess and lost no claims, to fix damage caused by someone else is not trivial and trivialising the criminal actions of the cyclist helps no one. Both committed serious offences and were both dealt with appropriately.

Seriously?

I guess I am wealthy, but not necessarily financially, as seems to be the current understanding of wealthy. If a scratch on your vehicle causes you so much distress and hardship that you feel you have to physically attack the perp. I suggest you can't really afford it.

Wanton vandalism is, of course, unacceptable, but attacking another human being for something so trivial is way up there.Too much is put on easily replaceable material goods and your support of the driver is unforgivable.

Just for info, I do have some quality products, I look after them and I use them. I am not precious about them and have not over extended myself in order to buy them, therefore if I need to replace damaged goods, I can. But at the end of the day, they are only things.

John Smith wrote:

Both committed serious offences and were both dealt with appropriately.

What we 'know' seems to be that the cyclist scratched the car and the driver knocked him off. Do you know why the cyclist scratched the car?

Besides, how is a £533 fine for driving a car into someone, 'appropriate'?

davel wrote:

John Smith wrote:

Both committed serious offences and were both dealt with appropriately.

What we 'know' seems to be that the cyclist scratched the car and the driver knocked him off. Do you know why the cyclist scratched the car?

Besides, how is a £533 fine for driving a car into someone, 'appropriate'?

How is not paying for the car to be repaired appropiate too? I would want my bike repaired if someone broke it

Mb747 wrote:

davel wrote:

John Smith wrote:

Both committed serious offences and were both dealt with appropriately.

What we 'know' seems to be that the cyclist scratched the car and the driver knocked him off. Do you know why the cyclist scratched the car?

Besides, how is a £533 fine for driving a car into someone, 'appropriate'?

 

How is not paying for the car to be repaired appropiate too? I would want my bike repaired if someone broke it

I'd suggest that in scenario one, a paultry fine has been issued when the illegal action could, and only through good fortune didn't, have seriously injured / killed someone. It was an assault. 

In scenario two, someone's property was damaged, which will have caused frustration and upset. No one is going to die from a scratched side panel. 

As mentioned previously, the costs to repair the paint work could easily cost more than the £533 fine issued... is there anyway, in your mind that you beleive it right and fair that of the two actions, the cyclist should be paying a heavier price? 

brooksby wrote:

Edward Hore, president of the Australian Cycle Alliance wrote:

 “Nothing can excuse the recklessness of the driver. Nothing justifies the attack and the brutality.”

Not true.  Apparently "keying my car" is a complete justification for running someone off the road in such a way as is likely to cause them harm or even death...   (the Australian courts have shown it to be so).

Have they really, if they had convicted the cyclist and not the driver then that's what the courts would be saying. However they have convicted both for thier indiviual actions.
They have accepted that the car keying may explain the actions of the driver, but they have not excused him for those actions.

I would like to know what happen to enrage the cyclist to the point where he keyed the car, seems amazing that he was then as calm as he appeared to be when cycling at the start of the published video

EK Spinner wrote:

brooksby wrote:

Edward Hore, president of the Australian Cycle Alliance wrote:

 “Nothing can excuse the recklessness of the driver. Nothing justifies the attack and the brutality.”

Not true.  Apparently "keying my car" is a complete justification for running someone off the road in such a way as is likely to cause them harm or even death...   (the Australian courts have shown it to be so).

Have they really, if they had convicted the cyclist and not the driver then that's what the courts would be saying. However they have convicted both for thier indiviual actions.
They have accepted that the car keying may explain the actions of the driver, but they have not excused him for those actions.

I would like to know what happen to enrage the cyclist to the point where he keyed the car, seems amazing that he was then as calm as he appeared to be when cycling at the start of the published video

Quote:

"Court documents obtained by Fairfax Media reveal, Michael Giarruso, 27, fronted the Melbourne Magistrates Court on June 25 and pleaded guilty to recklessly causing injury over the November 9 incident.

He was convicted and fined $1000 by magistrate Franz Holzer.

Four other charges were struck out including careless driving, unlawful assault, intentionally causing injury, and reckless conduct endangering serious injury."

$1000 fine for behaviour like that?  Seems to me like keying the car was used as a major, major mitigating circumstance?