d) ?????
Just checking to see if anyone was still awake
d) ?????
Ooh yes. Can I go with "is deeply remorseful and has turned his life around since the incident and is now actively seeking work."
a) Yes he crossed the road on a red light (it is a pedestrian crossing). Bad man.
b) In the video you can clearly see him starting the cross the road WITH HIS HANDS IN HIS POCKETS. He was nearly half way across the road at the time of the altercation. Even though he is in the wrong she could have cycled more defensively - slowed to accommodate him and maybe even gone round the back rather than cut across the front of him.
c) There was absolutely no need for her to say what she did. Maybe he took his hands out of his pockets quickly thinking she was going to cycle into him and was naturally trying to "defend" from injury and she mistook this for him attempting to push her off. Who knows, but when I listened to the video when I got home I thought her tone was slightly confrontational/condescending.
e) If she did give him the finger she should have made sure she could pedal faster than he could run. Also if you've already decided that someone is a potential threat why the hell would you antagonise them further?!
He was 100% in the wrong to do what he did, but she didn't exactly behave impeccably herself. If that's victim blaming so be it.
What has his employment status got to do with the price of bread?
What's next? Don't make eye contact with anyone? Don't talk to yourself in case someone thinks you're having a go? Or maybe we should just give up, get in a car and drive everywhere?
Has anyone considered that "the finger" may have been the cyclist putting her hand out to indicate a left turn, and Mr. Shortfuse took it the wrong way? The number of people on here saying "Yeah, it's his fault but she's not exactly blameless" is incredible.
What has his employment status got to do with the price of bread?
Surely the magistrates must here this multiple times per day. Do they really buy it?Because that's the sort of drivel I regularly hear trotted out in Court as mitigation for similar acts.
So cyclists should ride around meekly just in case there is an idiot out there?People like to throw emotive terms around. She was not to blame for the assault. Nobody is saying she is. But like it or not, the world is full of hair-trigger idiots like this guy and if you go round telling people off you'll eventually find one of them.
Surely the magistrates must here this multiple times per day. Do they really buy it?
So cyclists should ride around meekly just in case there is an idiot out there?
AgreedIt's not about being meek, it's about avoiding getting into confrontations over minor issues. Sometimes it may be appropriate to engage with another road user, but most of the time it's pointless.
Because that's the sort of drivel I regularly hear trotted out in Court as mitigation for similar acts.
I read it as it says - that he hears that excuse brought out in court as a way of trying to mitigate a sentence. Nothing more or less. He didn't say he thought or implied that. Whether or not the defense lawyers/magistrates believe it is a different matter, but not one that can be addressed here.To me, it sounds like you're saying that people who are unemployed are more likely to commit such violent acts, which of course would be complete nonsense.