grumpyoldwoman
Senior Member
No. He didn't get put in jail.Just got a restraining order.phew! and ouch. And I hope the f*cker is still in jail.
.
And he rings up every so often (when drunk) asking when are we getting back together!
No. He didn't get put in jail.Just got a restraining order.phew! and ouch. And I hope the f*cker is still in jail.
.
The problem is that our criminal justice system, police, CPS, courts, treat assault with a car as careless driving.
I'd love someone to answer me so ... are you saying that we shouldn't "get into it" with drivers, from a survival point of view? So does that mean we shouldn't get into it with anyone better armed or stronger than us? If not, what's the difference? Should we treat drivers as lethal compared to other members of our society? How did we get to this place, where crossing a driver is putting our life in danger, but people seem to think that's the victim's fault.The first part seems correct to me, if only from a survival point of view.
I'd love someone to answer me so ... are you saying that we shouldn't "get into it" with drivers, from a survival point of view? So does that mean we shouldn't get into it with anyone better armed or stronger than us? If not, what's the difference? Should we treat drivers as lethal compared to other members of our society? How did we get to this place, where crossing a driver is putting our life in danger, but people seem to think that's the victim's fault.
It is quite possible to have a discussion with a driver who has made a mistake without launching into argument
2:50 into this one shows exactly what not to do.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPajA22Re_Q
I think it depends how you do it.
If you watch some of the Youtube clips the first thing the cyclist or motorist does is to start with a whole chain of expletives. Not a good way to start.
I think we all recall the very nice approach taken by the cyclist and car driver in London. That worked well.
my 2p
Like @jefmcg, I disagree. The power that the aggressive motorist is exerting is not an inevitable product of being bigger and heavier - it resides to a far greater extent in the entitlement, which is socially reinforced by prevalent attitudes such as those displayed by Shouldn't-be-in-charge-of-a-bus.The first part seems correct to me, if only from a survival point of view.
You've overvalued it, if you don't mind my saying so.
It's not a loss of control - it's the exact opposite.
None of the analogies offered, except for @jefmcg's first one, involve the relentless day-in day-out bullying behaviour and sense of entitlement by the larger more aggressive participant that @theclaud has referred to. 'Standing up to' that kind of behaviour involves other things than swearing and retaliating at the time of the aggression - it also involves challenging that set of attitudes every single time they try to appear, at work, in conversations, and in posts on here as well.
I was trying to separate the simple survival issue - avoiding unneccessary danger, which seems pretty uncontentious to me - from the ethical side of things. I think @Profpointy may have done a better job at separating the issues than I was capable of after a bottle of Rioja plus worries about the survival of a family friend who appears to have lost her duel with danger.Like @jefmcg, I disagree. The power that the aggressive motorist is exerting is not an inevitable product of being bigger and heavier - it resides to a far greater extent in the entitlement, which is socially reinforced by prevalent attitudes such as those displayed by Shouldn't-be-in-charge-of-a-bus.