Dreaded cyclists

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
23,613
Location
Utah
Car(s)
12 Wheels - 4.5 vehicles
The driver only made confirmed contact once she was being falsely imprisescape A reasonable person would have been in fear for their safety in that situation and so she was entirely justified in using her vehicle to try to escape. She didn't try to run people over, in fact she had been trying to get away without hitting anyone, which only angered the mob. At that point she slowly pushed free and then fled.

And lawyer in pretty much any court in the US would have any charges against her thrown out. I'd be surprised if you could even find a DA willing to file charges against her.

The primary aggressors were the cyclists, they were part of a violent mob that intended to seek out and cause conflicts. The driver was just going about her business when her car was surrounded, she was illegally restrained from leaving, and feared for her safety. She took measures to protect herself and escape and managed to do so without causing serious injury despite it being very easy for her to do so. If anything she should be praised for her restraint.

If I was in that same situation, I'm not so sure everyone would be walking away. Between the size of my car and the lack of fucks I give for an aggressor's well being, I probably would have driven over the mob to escape - and I would have been entirely justified under the law.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,599
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
So basically this:



Driving into people is not okay. How is that so hard to understand?

Blind pretty much covered it already, you are surrounded by a visibly angry mob that is stopping you from leaving, best course of action is try to get away.
If I was in that same situation, I'm not so sure everyone would be walking away. Between the size of my car and the lack of fucks I give for an aggressor's well being, I probably would have driven over the mob to escape - and I would have been entirely justified under the law.
Exactly, had it been me, especially with my pregnant wife and daughter in the car I would simply floor it out of there, if you happen to be in front of my car that's your problem.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,263
Driving into people is not okay. How is that so hard to understand?
Actually driving into people is perfectly acceptable... under the right circumstances, such as when they greatly outnumber you, surround your vehicle, verbally state their goal to prevent you from leaving, and then procure weapons. Maybe you'd prefer to stick around and see if those weapons will be used on you but I'd rather get to safety.
 

Mitchi

Sierras für alle!
DONOR
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
5,571
Location
Lüneburg
Car(s)
'89 C4
Actually driving into people is perfectly acceptable... under the right circumstances, such as when they greatly outnumber you, surround your vehicle, verbally state their goal to prevent you from leaving, and then procure weapons. Maybe you'd prefer to stick around and see if those weapons will be used on you but I'd rather get to safety.

As much as I can understand narf... if I feel in danger I'd rather do something *illegally* like driving people over (is it really illegal if you feel endangered?) than getting lynched... fuck the car in that case, and fuck the people, by doing so they're making themselves quite worthless anyway.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,263
As much as I can understand narf... if I feel in danger I'd rather do something *illegally* like driving people over (is it really illegal if you feel endangered?) than getting lynched... fuck the car in that case, and fuck the people, by doing so they're making themselves quite worthless anyway.
A saying comes to mind: "I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six."
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,867
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
As much as I can understand narf... if I feel in danger I'd rather do something *illegally* like driving people over (is it really illegal if you feel endangered?) than getting lynched... fuck the car in that case, and fuck the people, by doing so they're making themselves quite worthless anyway.

It's generally not illegal if they have actually attempted to attack you and the vehicle - it's considered self defense at that point.

The narfian alternative? We've already seen where that goes.


Start at 11:45.
 

Delll

Active Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
210
It's generally not illegal if they have actually attempted to attack you and the vehicle - it's considered self defense at that point.
As the car seems to have attacked a cyclist first, would you also say they were legally allowed to assault the car as self defense?
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,599
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
As the car seems to have attacked a cyclist first, would you also say they were legally allowed to assault the car as self defense?

Aside from the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of that, if it did happen there was no damage to either the rider or the bike, if she were to flee they could have taken down her info and call the cops. Even though it's a zipcar the company could trace who the operator was,
especially if they took pictures of the driver. In short no, because there was no reasonable fear for one's life.
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,156
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
As the car seems to have attacked a cyclist first, would you also say they were legally allowed to assault the car as self defense?

There is no attack in there; even if they touched (which I think happened but I'm not really sure), it was a nudge which didn't cause any harm to anybody. That is obvious to anyone. To be an attack, it must be purposedly launched with what the attacker thinks to be enough force to possibly cause some kind of damage; that was blatantly not the case.

But let's say, for the sake of the argument, that it was: then there was no threat whatsoever to the life of the cyclists, so much so that the woman tried to leave; hence, they were not allowed to use any force against her. And that is because of the US, because in most other countries there would be no possibilities for them to become violent in any way.

If the problem was the "damage" (which wasn't there, clearly) to the bicycle, the car had licence plate and insurance (neither of which are required to bicycles, it's alway interesting to remember), so they had no reason to try and block, stop or retain her in any way, since the car could be identified and reported, even more so with videos and witnesses. But we're talking about nothing, since there was no damage to the bicycle or to anybody.

Also, there was no reason for them trying to prevent her for going where she wanted to go, or to stop her in the first place.

---

Again, what are we talking about? There is no possible serious alternative point of view here: we have a group of people acting outside the law preventing other people from moving around freely, and when one of the victims refuses to abide to an unlawful and arrogant request, one of the men of the group tries to push her into submission to his own unlawful will. When the woman refuses to abide for the second time, he starts screaming and the other men encircle the car of the woman; and when she tries to leave, refusing to abide for the third time, they actively try to stop her by making physical contact with the vehicle. Notice that, up to now, no damage had been caused to anything or anyone. They were actively try to stop her from going away, for no reason at all. When she refuses even this fourth imposition and pushes on, using the strength offered by her vehicle, they become violent and start hitting her vehicle and smashing it. But she manages to free herself anyway.

Think of it this way: imagine she was a pedestrian, and they tried to stop her unlawfully. Then she tries to pass and to push them aside, but they block her and start screaming. Then she tries to go another way but they physically try to stop her by putting their hands on her to stop her. Then she tries to free herself with a bit of force and escape, but they start beating her, until she manages to push them away with some shoving, escaping with some bruises.

Wouldn't you say she had been assaulted and attacked? How is it that if she is on her car, then you even think it was her fault?
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
19,027
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
🏃‍♂️
Aside from the fact that there is absolutely no evidence of that

1:48 is the first on-screen contact between the two, and it's the car driving into people.

- - - Updated - - -

It's generally not illegal if they have actually attempted to attack you and the vehicle

Which they didn't. Smashing the car starts after the car drives into people at 1:48.

- - - Updated - - -

if I feel in danger

The same applies to the cyclist having the car creep at him when the whole thing started, and here's Blind_Io's logic on that:

"He threatened me!"

"Did he actually hit you?"

"Well... no."
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,599
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
1:48 is the first on-screen contact between the two, and it's the car driving into people.

- - - Updated - - -
AFTER she is swarmed by an angry mob, how are you not getting that simple fact into your head? It's not a matter of her being an aggressive asshole and randomly trying to run over cyclists it's a person in reasonable fear for her life.
The same applies to the cyclist having the car creep at him, and here's Blind_Io's logic on that:
Absolutely not, in any way shape or form, vehicles creep up on other vehicles all the time that's nature of driving. The cyclist had the ability to simply move out of the way of the car if he didn't like it, she wasn't trying to chase him down or block his path. This is exactly where the difference is here, when she tried to leave she was encircled by the crowd actively stopping her from getting away, at this point it is a reasonable fear for her safety.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
19,027
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
🏃‍♂️
AFTER she is swarmed by an angry mob, how are you not getting that simple fact into your head? It's not a matter of her being an aggressive asshole and randomly trying to run over cyclists it's a person in reasonable fear for her life.

I'll gladly quote again:

"He threatened me!"

"Did he actually hit you?"

"Well... no."

How can the driver's actions be justified due to fear without any actual contact when the cyclists' actions aren't?



Hint: I don't see either actions as justified.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,263
Even if the car did nudge the bike (which, by the way, was operated illegally and impeding traffic against all laws), the proper response is NOT to gang up and surround the vehicle. The biker who was allegedly rear-ended should have calmly spoken to the driver of the car, rather than yelling for his buddies to surround it, thus threatening the driver. The driver stayed put after the "incident", then felt threatened (justifiably so), attempted to circumvent the rowdy crowd as it began to turn violent, and finally had to escape at all costs.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,599
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
I'll gladly quote again:



How can the driver's actions be justified due to fear without any actual contact when the cyclists' actions aren't?



Hint: I don't see either actions as justified.

See my edit, there is a huge situational difference.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
19,027
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
🏃‍♂️
Even if the car did nudge the bike (which, by the way, was operated illegally and impeding traffic against all laws), the proper response is NOT to gang up and surround the vehicle. The biker who was allegedly rear-ended should have calmly spoken to the driver of the car, rather than yelling for his buddies to surround it, thus threatening the driver. The driver stayed put after the "incident", then felt threatened (justifiably so), attempted to circumvent the rowdy crowd as it began to turn violent, and finally had to escape at all costs.

I agree, as I've said numerous times the cyclists behaved badly.
However, even if the cyclists shout at the car, the proper response is NOT to drive through people.

If they physically attack your car, sure - make a getaway. If they're just surrounding you and shouting? Do what they asked and call the cops.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,599
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
I agree, as I've said numerous times the cyclists behaved badly.
However, even if the cyclists shout at the car, the proper response is NOT to drive through people.

If they physically attack your car, sure - make a getaway. If they're just surrounding you and shouting? Do what they asked and call the cops.

You clearly have no idea how dangerous a mob can become at a drop of a hat. Helpful list of all the Critical Ass conflicts with drivers and outcomes.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
19,027
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
🏃‍♂️
Absolutely not, in any way shape or form, vehicles creep up on other vehicles all the time that's nature of driving. The cyclist had the ability to simply move out of the way of the car if he didn't like it, she wasn't trying to chase him down or block his path. This is exactly where the difference is here, when she tried to leave she was encircled by the crowd actively stopping her from getting away, at this point it is a reasonable fear for her safety.

Bumping the vehicle blocking your path out of the way is not the nature of driving :no:
If the car in front of you doesn't set off when the light goes green, do you push them with your bumper? :no:

As for the reasonable fear, I'd say the cyclists' fear of being driven into is reasonable as well. After all, it's a two-ton car with an engine moving towards you, not just a few hipsters shouting through your locked doors.
See Blind_Io's logic for this, they didn't actually hit the car first so it's not okay to drive into people.

- - - Updated - - -

You clearly have no idea how dangerous a mob can become at a drop of a hat. Helpful list of all the Critical Ass conflicts with drivers and outcomes.

When the hat drops, you floor it. Until then, see Blind_Io's logic... you clearly have no idea how dangerous a car can become at a drop of a hat, but that seems to be no reason for considering it assault :rolleyes:

Again, I'm not condoning the cyclists' actions. I'm saying both parties behaved badly.
 
Last edited:

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,263
Given that the car did not hit the bicycle - you can see in the video that the wheels of the car are not moving - you have to wonder what the cyclists' motive was for claiming otherwise. It seems clear that they were out looking for trouble and decided to make an example out of a driver who honked at them. Within seconds of the alleged incident, the car is surrounded by an angry, shouting mob. It should be pretty obvious why the driver felt threatened and decided not to stick around to find out just how angry the mob was (which, as it turns out, was angry enough to beat the car with weapons). At about 1:50 a bike is slammed onto the hood of the car and the violent attack begins; at 1:54 the first bike lock hits the car as the vehicle is inching forward to safety (as opposed to ramming the crowd full-speed). In the end, the driver was actually cautious enough not to run over a single person.
 
Top