Dreaded cyclists

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
19,028
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
🏃‍♂️
you can see in the video that the wheels of the car are not moving

I can't see either movement or being still during the relevant second :dunno:

At about 1:50 a bike is slammed onto the hood of the car and the violent attack begins;

The violence begins a few seconds earlier, with the car driving (slowly, but still) into people.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,599
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
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:
Again 0 evidence that this actually happened. Even if it did could have been accidental, I been bumped at red lights when in the car, nature of driving.
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.
Absolute wrong, car moving towards you at essentially walking pace is not scary on any level (unless it's Christine), you can easily get out of the way or you can stand there like an asshat, in the latter case if you get get hit that's your own fault not the driver's.
When the hat drops, you floor it. Until then, see Blind_Io's logic.
When the shoe drops it will be too late, think about it this way, the guy with the bike lock could have reached in through the window and knocked her in the head, can you be sure it wasn't going to happen? Well she couldn't hence she took steps to get away.

Think of it this way, someone is approaching with a gun drawn, do you wait for them to shoot or either gtfo or shoot them first?
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,156
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
Bumping the vehicle blocking your path out of the way is not the nature of driving :no:

That incident did not happen in driving conditions or in a driving environment.

They both had vehicles and they both were on a public road, but that's all. None of them was "driving". It was a confrontation between people.

The same confrontation could have happened anywhere, more precisely anywhere a mob of protesters would try to prevent people to move around freely. The road and vehicles are background and tools.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
19,028
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
🏃‍♂️
Again 0 evidence that this actually happened.

Fully in shot at 1:48.

When the shoe drops it will be too late, think about it this way, the guy with the bike lock could have reached in through the window and knocked her in the head, can you be sure it wasn't going to happen? Well she couldn't hence she took steps to get away.

Window was closed, and - as seen on the video - withstood being smashed by the bike lock. No real danger of anyone reaching in, car windows are surprisingly tough.

Think of it this way, someone is approaching with a gun drawn, do you wait for them to shoot or either gtfo or shoot them first?

Nobody approached with a gun drawn :dunno: all they did was shout. Scary hipsters they must be, maybe it's the waxed moustaches... Still, the Blind_Io doctrine would suggest that someone approaching with a gun drawn didn't actually hurt you (yet), so you have no reason to act at all:
"He threatened me!"

"Did he actually hit you?"

"Well... no."

The closest things to a drawn gun in this incident is the car creeping up on people, and afterwards the bike lock in hand. However, when the bike lock was in hand (1:50), the driver already did drive into people (1:48).

- - - Updated - - -

That incident did not happen in driving conditions or in a driving environment.

They both had vehicles and they both were on a public road, but that's all. None of them was "driving". It was a confrontation between people.

I know, I was disagreeing with prizrak claiming that the car's behaviour was normal traffic behaviour.

The same confrontation could have happened anywhere, more precisely anywhere a mob of protesters would try to prevent people to move around freely. The road and vehicles are background and tools.

Mobs of protesters prevent me from moving around freely all the time. Do I drive through them? No, I wait until they go on their merry way.

Driving into people is NOT okay.
 
Last edited:

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,156
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
Mobs of protesters prevent me from moving around freely all the time. Do I drive through them? No, I wait until they go on their merry way.

Driving into people is NOT okay.

I will restate what I've said earlier on:

"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?"

There is no real difference here. THe only difference is she used the car to give the first nudge (AFTER being blocked); but you can nudge people with anything, because a nudge has not enough energy to do any damage and it's not meant to do any damage, and it hasn't done any damage even if the car is massive and heavy. (and that's conceding she actually touched the tire of the bicycle at 0:48)
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,599
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Fully in shot at 1:48.
For a quintillionth time, after she was swarmed by an angry mob, she didn't randomly drive into the middle of the pack and cause the incident in the first place.

Window was closed, and - as seen on the video - withstood being smashed by the bike lock. No real danger of anyone reaching in, car windows are surprisingly tough.
Go to 1:53, note that no special glass breaking tool was used, it was a crow bar which is basically just a piece of steel (kind of like a bike lock), you want to bet your safety on the window being able to take a bike lock?
[video=youtube;XsW-QCxXkQA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsW-QCxXkQA[/video]

Also you never know what weapons they could have had at their disposal, for example this is a bike lock my wife used to use when she rode to work (yes I had many heated arguments with her over it). This is essentially a rudimentary flail, that chain weighs around 10lbs and is made out of solid steel.
Chain-lock-bike.jpg

The closest things to a drawn gun in this incident is the car creeping up on people, and afterwards the bike lock in hand. However, when the bike lock was in hand (1:50), the driver already did drive into people (1:48).
Again a car creeping up is not scary or threatening, you don't stop 10 feet from other cars/pedestrians/etc... do you? Plenty people will creep up on someone in front of them when they expect them to move.

Mobs of protesters prevent me from moving around freely all the time. Do I drive through them? No, I wait until they go on their merry way.
Had the cyclist not claimed to be ran into causing the mob to swarm her, that is likely what would have happened.
Driving into people is NOT okay.
Under normal circumstances sure, under the ones in the video? Absofuckinglutely.
 
Last edited:

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
13,263
Window was closed, and - as seen on the video - withstood being smashed by the bike lock. No real danger of anyone reaching in, car windows are surprisingly tough.
At 1:58 it sounds a lot like bits of broken glass falling. Same at 2:42
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
19,028
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
🏃‍♂️
I will restate what I've said earlier on:

"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?"

There is no real difference here. THe only difference is she used the car to give the first nudge (AFTER being blocked); but you can nudge people with anything, because a nudge has not enough energy to do any damage and it's not meant to do any damage, and it hasn't done any damage even if the car is massive and heavy. (and that's conceding she actually touched the tire of the bicycle at 0:48)

There's a massive difference between a pedestrian being laid hands on, pushed, beaten, etc. and a car driver being shouted at.
For example, the car driver has a car around himself so no hands were laid upon the person at all... and the car driver can floor it at any time if the shit were to properly hit the fan, for example once someone does indeed smash the car with the lock after she drives into people.

- - - Updated - - -

For a quintillionth time, after she was swarmed by an angry mob, she didn't randomly drive into the middle of the pack and cause the incident in the first place.

I'm not saying she caused it, the idiot cyclists caused the incident to begin. She just made it worse by creeping at the guy blocking her (maybe hitting him in the process), and by driving into people at 1:48.

I could post Blind_Io's logic again, but you've ignored it for too many times already to make sense to repost.

- - - Updated - - -

At 1:58 it sounds a lot like bits of broken glass falling. Same at 2:42

Yeah, sounds like he smashed the rear window as she was already out of danger - and noticeably after she drove into people. Using Blind_Io's logic again, the cyclists certainly were being assaulted by then (1:48) so they have the right to defend themselves? Good thing those hipsters don't carry.

- - - Updated - - -

Had the cyclist not claimed to be ran into causing the mob to swarm her, that is likely what would have happened.

Had the cyclist not been run into causing the mob to swarm her, that is likely what would have happened.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,599
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Good thing those hipsters don't carry.

Do you know that for a fact? What if someone did have a firearm and by the time "shit truly hit the fan" she would have been shot dead?

This is exfuckingactly why in this and many other countries she was legally justified in what she did.

You can certainly handle a similar situation in whatever way you please but you are demonstrably wrong in saying she was not justified in her actions.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
19,028
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
🏃‍♂️
Do you know that for a fact? What if someone did have a firearm and by the time "shit truly hit the fan" she would have been shot dead?

If someone is that nuts to be smashing a car with a bicycle lock then I'm fairly certain that someone would also be nuts enough to use his gun, were he carrying one.

This is exfuckingactly why in this and many other countries she was legally justified in what she did.

You can certainly handle a similar situation in whatever way you please but you are demonstrably wrong in saying she was not justified in her actions.

*sigh* I guess I do have to repost Blind_Io's logic again:

"He threatened me!"

"Did he actually hit you?"

"Well... no."

She may have felt threatened, but per that logic it's not okay to go drive into people based on that feeling.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,599
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
If someone is that nuts to be smashing a car with a bicycle lock then I'm fairly certain that someone would also be nuts enough to use his gun, were he carrying one.
And you have clairvoyance enough to know this ahead of time?


*sigh* I guess I do have to repost Blind_Io's logic again:

She may have felt threatened, but per that logic it's not okay to go drive into people based on that feeling.

I really wonder if you have zero situational awareness, a single vehicle creeping up on another vehicle (after all you all keep screaming your heads off about bicycles being vehicles) without making contact is traffic.

Being encircled by a mob and prevented from leaving is assault and in some jurisdictions attempted kidnapping. She had no way of knowing what would happen or if the mob was armed with something more potent than bike locks or if there were more people on the way. By law she could have floored it the fuck out of there as soon as they started shouting and preventing her from leaving.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
19,028
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
🏃‍♂️
And you have clairvoyance enough to know this ahead of time?




I really wonder if you have zero situational awareness, a single vehicle creeping up on another vehicle (after all you all keep screaming your heads off about bicycles being vehicles) without making contact is traffic.

Being encircled by a mob and prevented from leaving is assault and in some jurisdictions attempted kidnapping. She had no way of knowing what would happen or if the mob was armed with something more potent than bike locks or if there were more people on the way. By law she could have floored it the fuck out of there as soon as they started shouting and preventing her from leaving.

:dunno: just applying Blind_Io's logic to the car's behaviour.
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,156
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
There's a massive difference between a pedestrian being laid hands on, pushed, beaten, etc. and a car driver being shouted at.

The situation was the same, the tools were different. I have translated the situation into a pedestrian one. If she was a pedestrian, you wouldn't stay here saying she made it worse, you would point out the aggressiveness of the blockers.

Here it's the same, a car's window is not a safe protection against violence.

For example, the car driver has a car around himself so no hands were laid upon the person at all

No hands were laid upon the cyclists either, and none of them was hurt in any way. My example still stands. If you want to understand how and why they behaved like they did, you have to take the general situation and motives into account -first-. The rest comes -after-

... and the car driver can floor it at any time if the shit were to properly hit the fan, for example once someone does indeed smash the car with the lock after she drives into people.

That is simply not true. After the window crashes, any untrained person will be dazed for a few instant by the noise and the debris flying around, thus remaining undefended against probable subsequent hits, like, literally, sitting ducks. And after the first hit, the dazing just gets worse.

I think you badly misjudge the reaction of a standard person confronted with unexpected sudden danger, and I think you think too much outside real conditions and into movie-like scenario.

Any normal person would try to leave well before having someone hitting at her car's in any way, let alone becoming dangerous. That is standard psychology.

I'm not saying she caused it, the idiot cyclists caused the incident to begin. She just made it worse by creeping at the guy blocking her (maybe hitting him in the process), and by driving into people at 1:48.

You see, I might tell you, and it would be true, that she could have stayed calm and submissed, waiting for the raging apes to scream their superiority to everyone else. She would have got no harm. None at all. But, you see, that is exactly like saying that a woman, for example, shouldn't wear a short skirt when going out, or walking alone at night in certain areas, and that if something happened, "she looked for it".

Of course she could avoid all of this by doing something different, but everytime she does, everytime any of us chooses not to do something legal and wanted just because of the social, or physical, threat represented by some opposing will, she is losing - all of us are losing - part of her, of our, freedom.

To concede to those presumptuous, arrogant, self-appointed paladins of "a better world" the ability to unlawfully dictate you when you should go, when you should stop, when you should wait, what you should drive, how you should behave, means to give away some of our freedom. Of course you are intelligently safer by giving in to them, but you are subjugating to their unlawful and constraining will. And it's not like the police will stop critical mass from going around either. So by acting safer, you are slowly losing your freedom. It's a sad choice between two equally important things.

At some point, someone will try to put a stop to this injustice, otherwise they will get to the point where they tell you where and what to drive, maybe even how to dress.

She did just that; she refused to aknowledge their requests, and she stood tall against them. And of course a confrontation ensued with the first cyclist, who tried to force his will on her again by blocking her lawful way. She moved towards him, maybe she nudged him, signifying that she wasn't giving in, and he went crazy, obviously.

That's psychology, not driving. And it's pretty easy psychology too.

He called his friends. She intelligently gave up and tried to move away. They wanted for her to stop, to show that their victory was complete, to humiliate her because she dared to disagree with them and to oppose them and to show how feeble they really are (a lycraed man confronted to a 2 ton car -again, it's basic psychology-), so when she moved away, they tried to physically block her by putting their hands and bicycles on her car. She mustn't move.

Again, it's psychology.

She stood tall again (thanks to the might of her vehicle, which allowed her to do so - it's again a show of strength-), and pushed on, against their will and physical actions, and they went crazy, because they were losing the confrontation, and started hitting and smashing the car.

Of course she then pressed on the gas pedal, threaded on a couple of bicycles and got her victory and her liberty.

The cyclists, they lost. Twice, as the police understood the situation and arrested him, not her. Luckily for everyone, I'd say.

For the third time, THIS is what happened there. A show of strength and dominance. Not a traffic situation.

And she, as reckless as she was, was the "good guy".
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
19,028
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
🏃‍♂️
You see, I might tell you, and it would be true, that she could have stayed calm and submissed, waiting for the raging apes to scream their superiority to everyone else. She would have got no harm. None at all. But, you see, that is exactly like saying that a woman, for example, shouldn't wear a short skirt when going out, or walking alone at night in certain areas, and that if something happened, "she looked for it".

Equating "wearing a short skirt" with "driving a car at/into people"? :no:
 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
2,156
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Polo mkVI
Equating "wearing a short skirt" with "driving a car at/into people"? :no:

You are avoiding the central part of my comment and you are concentrating on trying to fallaciously divert the point by attacking an example you aren't even getting right.

I won't follow you into dispersed and useless discussions. If you want to talk, get back on tracks.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
21,599
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
You are avoiding the central part of my comment and you are concentrating on trying to fallaciously divert the point by attacking an example you aren't even getting right.

I won't follow you into dispersed and useless discussions. If you want to talk, get back on tracks.

That's narf in a nutshell really.
 

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
14,987
Location
HEL
Car(s)
79 Opel Kadett|72 Ford Country Sedan|92 Volvo 945
narf, I think the car driver's behavour is justified and would be treated as such (self-defense) under German Law as well...
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
23,622
Location
Utah
Car(s)
12 Wheels - 4.5 vehicles
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.

The difference is that the cyclist was not prevented from escaping, so that argument carries no water. The driver tried many times to escape, first by creeping through her GREEN light at less than walking speed - she was detained. Then by trying to reverse - detained again. Then by trying to drive around - detained again.

The cyclists are the persistent aggressors here. There is no evidence of contact with the car other than the cyclist putting a foot down and shouting that the car ran into him - something that is not shown on the video. Remember, this is the cyclist who deviated from his path with the intent to detain the driver illegally, block traffic illegally, ride into oncoming traffic, and cross illegally. The driver was on the correct side of the road and acting in a lawful manner. So the cyclist decided the driver of this car needed to be singled out and punished for having the balls to try to drive slowly through a green signal.

Narf, I know you love to be devil's advocate, but even in the bicycle utopia of San Francisco, where these mobs get police escort for their illegal activities - the police, DA, and city have not sought the driver to press charges. The consensus of legal professionals and law enforcement is that the cyclists were the aggressors and the driver's actions were justified.

I understand that you have a different opinion, but until you produce a law degree and acceptance into the California State BAR, I'm going with the experts on this one.
 
Top