Here's the gist of the "subject":
An old woman was quoted in a British Rag after hitting a bicyclist; some self righteous BF posters cheered because she must have been justified because, one, she said so, and two, their experience tells them that it is always (or should be) open season on bad boy cyclists as defined by the self appointed whackers and their smug cheerleaders.

ILTB-2, I for one, didn't cheer because she was justified simply because she said so, in fact I didn't cheer for her, tho' I sympathised that an 83-yr old can't cross with the lights in her favour wthout being put at risk by a law-breaking cyclist. However, on the balance of probabilities, it is highly unlikely that the lady would have crossed against the lights. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the life peerage system and the House of Lords, it is extremely rare that anyone of her age, not in possession of her faculties, would still be taking part in debates. I therefore conclude that, given the extremely high frequency of complaints about cyclists barging across pedestrian crossings against the lights especially in London, she described the situation correctly.

Neither do I think that it is or should be open season on "bad boy" cyclists, any more than I think it should be open season on bad boy pedestrians, even tho' one crossing against the lights cost me a mild concussion, a new helmet and a front wheel re-build.

It does, however, seriously piss me off that, instead of being able to put the case for cyclists on local radio and in meetings with city councillors, I have to spend the time defending us against cretins like the one the baroness handbagged. Remove the high visibility that such riders have in the minds of the general public and more of our time could be spent putting the general non-cycling, driving, public right on their often bizarre misconceptions about our rights and what constitutes good cycling and good driving.

we don't have a class of inbred overprivileged human breeding stock to defer to!

You don't say!

Be careful with that one... You've been run by two families since 1989 and that might not end any time soon.

The Republicans are truly masters of spin . . . and this one is particularly clever. One family (the Bush family) has predominated in American politics since '89. The Clinton's are sandwiched between, but, now we need change, so they are lumped together with the Bush's as this singular rule by two since '89.

It's really clever.

You could take any two administrations and make the same statement . . . but it has more impact in this case only because of the Bush's, but, somehow, Republicans spin it to blame the Clinton's . . . we should vote against another Clinton to break this stranglehold.

What surprises me is that Republicans seem to get away with this non-logic in that no one ever takes them to task on it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Clinton's, but there isn't much, imo, to redeem the Bush's, either.

. . . and this business about us being ruled by just two families is spin without logic and nothing else.

Caruso

No possibility that someone of royal blood (or anyone else) who took vigilante action against a cyclist might have been wrong, eh?:rolleyes:

You Americans truly are the original "Richard Heads"!

You don't have to have royal blood to be a baroness. That's totally rich coming from the bunch of idiots that voted a plank like Bush into power.

So which group of "peers" granted the Baroness of Hand Bag the privilege to whack anyone that offends her delicate sensibilities?

You don't need permission to whack a complete and utter dickhead round the back of the head.

You probably need to be carefull yourself......DUCK!

Yep, you KNOW :rolleyes:all about what happened in London just like you KNOW :rolleyes:what I (or anybody else) "can't stand", and you KNOW :rolleyes:that I think (or have written) that cyclists are "infallible gods" or should not be held accountable for their actions. Yep, you KNOW :rolleyes: all about that "double standard" gibberish you assign to me because you are like the handful of other dimwits who choose to IGNORE (some even brag about their IGNORance) what I wrote and instead write about what you KNOW :rolleyes: I think.

What's next, going to react to what you KNOW:rolleyes: all about cyclists as reported by Radio Shock Jocks and Letters to the Editor of the local Supermarket handout; or maybe the doings of Brittany or Lindsey as reported by the British Tabs?

Come to England fella and YOU try and pull the same stunt with ME. You'll get more than a handbag round the back of your head you'd get it shoved tight up your jacksie followed by your handlebars, stem, pedals and finally my size 10's.

Fun to watch the two whack jobs going after each other! :fight: :roflmao:

Fun to watch the two whack jobs going after each other! :fight: :roflmao:

The only whack jobs round here all have accents like a certain GW Bush...... now there's a whack job for you!

I wonder what the reaction would be if the baroness was running the red light on a vintage 3 speed and a pedestrian hit her with their backpack?

I'm sorry, but an old woman isn't going to go hit people with her purse for no particular reason. I remember how many red light runners I saw when I was in London, so I'm going to say it probably happened the way it was reported. And again, she is 83 years old. If Saintly Cyclist had hit the evil Baroness, I'm sure the story would've read "Baroness Hit and Killed by Light-Jumping Cyclist".


What's the cutoff age? what if she was 53? or 33? what objects are ok to use in the assault? what if she was carrying a small bag of groceries with canned goods? would that be ok to use as the assault weapon?

So, since it's OK to hit someone with whatever is at hand who is about to (but actually doesn't) violate your ROW, what if she had walked out into the bike lane between two parked cars without looking, right into rthe cyclist's path? (old people do it all the time) Would it be OK for the cyclist to whack her across the head with his U-lock as he swerved around her? what if the cyclist was an elderly lady? maybe it would be ok then.

...Would it be OK for the cyclist to whack her across the head with his U-lock as he swerved around her? what if the cyclist was an elderly lady? maybe it would be ok then.

Sure, any Instant Justice Action by a self appointed Vigilante would be "OK," if some Radio Shock Jock, or Tabloid Headline Writer, or Letter to the Editor Ranter, or a Self Righteous Know-It-All BF Donkey says it is "OK.":rolleyes:

This story reminds me of that old Devo song...

Whack that dip
He could've broke your hip
Step on a crack
Break the bikers back

When a cyclist comes along
You must whack him
Before the light is red for long
You must whack him
When someone's doing wrong
You must whack him

Now whack him
Into shape
Shape him up
Hit straight
Go for it
Hit his head
He'll try to deflect it
It's not too late
To whack him
Whack him good

When a cyclist runs a light
You must whack him
The baroness must be right
She's not slackin'
No one gets away
Without a whackin'

I say whack him
For his own good
I say whack him
Whack him good :D

I say, I think we have a hit song here.

If you are going to jump a light, do so without getting in the peds' way... it's really simple. I routinely violate traffic laws here but do so in such a way, I almost never honked or yelled at. Even when passing the open doors of the streetcar, I do so slowly as to not endanger the ROW peds, in many years I haven't been dinged at once by the streetcar driver, this incl. doing it at rush hour. I've tipped the cap at peds as I ride safely through crosswalks giving them several feet of space and I slow down somewhat. It is really that simple to be able to get where you have to go quickly on a bike without pissing everyone off.

This story reminds me of that old Devo song...

Whack that dip
He could've broke your hip
Step on a crack
Break the bikers back

When a cyclist comes along
You must whack him
Before the light is red for long
You must whack him
When someone's doing wrong
You must whack him

Now whack him
Into shape
Shape him up
Hit straight
Go for it
Hit his head
He'll try to deflect it
It's not too late
To whack him
Whack him good

When a cyclist runs a light
You must whack him
The baroness must be right
She's not slackin'
No one gets away
Without a whackin'

I say whack him
For his own good
I say whack him
Whack him good :D


Sounds like a HIT to me! :p (pun totally intended)

All I've learnt from this thread is that next time I run a red and there's ped-dodoging involved I'll anticipate a swinging purse from a baroness. If I'm quick enough I might be able to snatch it from her, maybe even score an unopened box of prozac. ;)

What San Ren said, as ever.

Also, Pirate & Jammer.

I ALWAYS give senior peds an extra cushion when cycling past, as they feel a much greater sense of vulnerability.

Bottom line, however: you can't go out of your way to (deliberately) batter somebody because they (unintentionally) startled you.

That's vigilanteism of the most extreme & absurd sort.

I learned messin' in MTL where jaywalking is a well loved municipal sport. I learned how to carve 'em, and avoidance. ;)

Just look at the expression on the ol' gal. :D

No wild screaming Fuzzy-Wuzzies will defeat that one! I love the Brits. Bashing good show, Baroness!

:beer:

...and to any ignoramus that suggests that the US is lucky to have escaped the scourge of class - take a good look around. We have the largest class of criminals and miscreants in the world, capped on top by the largest class of corporate aristocracy in the world. :rolleyes:

By far, most of what is good in America, we got from Great Britain. "Up the British!"

Be careful with that one... You've been run by two families since 1989 and that might not end any time soon.

I usually avoid policical discussions, but that was a nice shot! ;)

Bottom line, however: you can't go out of your way to (deliberately) batter somebody because they (unintentionally) startled you.

Sure...until someone in a pickup truck, blowing through a red light "unintentionally" startles you.

That's vigilanteism of the most extreme & absurd sort.

Handbag swatting is vigilantism of the most extreme sort?
:roflmao:
This is the funniest bike forums thread I've read in a long time.

Bottom line, however: you can't go out of your way to (deliberately) batter somebody because they (unintentionally) startled you.
He intentionally ran the light, knowing full well there would be pedestrians crossing. Anything that happens is basically something the guy decided to chance. It's an idiotic double-standard to go around breaking laws but whine when someone else does the same thing.

RWP - trucks KILL; bicycles don't.

BIG difference.

And the extremity/absurdity of her reaction is in the degree of difference between the inciting act and her response.

Synon - if this PARTICULAR guy has a history of terrorizing/knocking over peds, sure - she may have been justified in striking back.

But she went too far.

He's just a guy who ran a light & startled her.

It sucks, but it doesn't justify battery.

If he'd knocked her over, however?

THEN I'd be fine with him being punched or whatever.

(Is this a bike forum???)

:D

[QUOTE]RWP - trucks KILL; bicycles don't. BIG difference

Cyclist hits 83-year old woman, say, and there is no risk of her being killed? Wrong. It does, however, rarely, happen. She may be a feisty, and possibly short-tempered, old lady, but she will still be more frail than you or I. Old people can die from something as relatively minor to us as a fractured thigh. Her reaction to her perceived danger to her safety is much the same as has been recorded by posters on this forum
.
And the extremity/absurdity of her reaction is in the degree of difference between the inciting act and her response.

You are 83 and you are on a signal controlled crossing when a cyclist deliberately ignores the red. You are startled and react instinctively. And you swing your handbag at him with all the power, speed and strength of your 83-year old arms. The difference is that he could have seriously injured her, whereas his risk was extremely small. Yes, technically, it was assault, but the consequences were there none.

Synon - if this PARTICULAR guy has a history of terrorizing/knocking over peds, sure - she may have been justified in striking back.
But she went too far.
He's just a guy who ran a light & startled her.
It sucks, but it doesn't justify battery.
If he'd knocked her over, however?
THEN I'd be fine with him being punched or whatever.

London has a population of 8m+. she would, of course, have been able to instantly recognised him as a notoriously dangerous rider, yes? He just "ran a light and startled her"? so that's only a small matter? Will all those with 80+ year old relatives on this forum put their hands up and dismiss this as lightly as Bicure does.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of her action (battery? - oh, come on), whose reputation do you think has been damaged in the public eye? Hers, or cyclists?

I've written elsewhere on this forum that, if you are a campaigner (do you go to endless, frustrating meetings, Bicure?), you get fed up of having to spend time dealing with the often-held public view of us as law-breakers who never get caught and punished, instead of dealing with the serious problems that all road users, but especially cyclists, face.

If we were all law abiding people and almost never, visibly, did the things that many do, we would still have an uphill battle, but we would, at the very least, be able to spend our time on the real issues that we ahve to solve, before we can ride on the highway as safely as is humanly possible.

Please re-read the post where I said that he should have given her an extra cushion due to her age.

But do you really believe a cyclist hit by a handbag hasn't been put in danger of as serious a sort (or much greater) than a pedestrian being hit (which she wasn't) by a cyclist?

C'mon now!

She was STARTLED.

When STARTLED, we are legally/morally permitted to react in kind.

Period.

He SHOULD have given her plenty of cushion, but he didn't.

Instead, he startled her.

And she could have screamed "Guttersnipe!," but she didn't.

She battered him.

Would you feel differently if it was an 83 year old cyclist battered by a young woman?

I wouldn't, as it's not relevant.

You don't lay your hands on others because they unintentionally startled you.

And you feel they MIGHT have (had they made contact with you) knocked you over.

And (possibly) caused you injury.

(Which might have been serious.)

If people (of any age) were allowed to batter others because they felt startled, it would be WWIII all day/night long.

I sometimes wanna brain people who honk.

They startle me.

Should I physically assault them?

Am I permitted this right when I reach a certain age?

And should the police be permitted to shoot/mace/taze/club cyclists who run red lights?

Does that make sense to you?

(Yeesh.)

As to endless, frustrating meetings?

Of course, dude.

Yer crumpets are pretty presumptuous to think otherwise.

But the REAL danger faced by cyclists & pedestrians (& motorists themselves) in kar kulture is NOT the same as the PERCEIVED danger caused by a cyclist running a red light & (unintentionally) startling somebody.

If you're so easily side-tracked by such obfuscations, I can imagine that your meetings are a bit longer & more frustrating than the average. ;)

Next time this comes up, just point out that kars cause over a MILLION deaths each year.

Bicycles cause NONE.

Please:

STOP.

BLAMING.

THE.

VICTIMS.

First of all, it's called a paragraph. Learn how to write one.

As for the matter at hand, you're saying the cyclist is the victim. I disagree. Why? He jumped a light. He violated the ROW of others. The consequences of his illegal action should fall on him. It's not like she shot him, or stabbed him, which obviously would be a vicious overeaction. He didn't even fall down; he was able to keep going as though nothing had happened. If the elderly Baroness had been hit, as I've repeated many times, she probably would have died from her injuries. I know this, as I remember how frail my grandmother was. She could still walk, but if she had been hit by a bicycle, it would've almost certainly killed her. We were worried she would fall somewhere, and be killed by that.

There is a monumental difference between 23 and 83. If the Baroness were 23 years old, I'd say it wasn't justified. The injuries would be less significant, and more of an annoyance to a 23 year old had she been struck. Seriously, I can't believe you or anyone else is moaning about "the poor cyclist" when the elderly pedestrian is the one who would've been killed. Just as motorists have an obligation to yeild to cyclists, cyclists have an obligation to stop at lights, and yeild to pedestrians.

If you ever wonder why people don't take cyclists with your attitude seriously, it's because they don't like double standards. Respect is earned, Bicure. If you run reds, cut off and nearly hit pedestrians, and then blame them for your poor cycling practices, don't expect them to be nice to you. And in this case, I sympathize with one of the most vulnerable road users out there - an elderly pedestrian, not a dangerous rider.

Synon.

It's.

called.

the.

law.

Read.

it.

:)

You may not batter someone because they startled you.

Period.

Cyclists who startle the elderly (I don't do it & don't advocate it) are NOT the problem.

Kager kultur is.

It terrorizes EVERYBODY in EVERY way, and cyclists get caught in the cross-hairs between the (most) vulnerable group (peds) and the most dangerous group (cagers).

Non-cagers (peds & cyclists) are forced into a tiny margin by Kager Kultur, and we sometimes have collisions.

This time, it happened in a crosswalk when a startled person battered someone who unintentionally startled her AS HE SAFELY PASSED HER BY.

Pay attention to the man behind the curtain, Synny.

It's ol' Henry Ford, and he's laffin' his ass off as we fight about this.

G
O
T
T
I
T
?

:D

Okay, you can save your little propaganda spiel for a thread where it's relavant. We're talking about a very specific example of a cyclist violating the law and whether or what occured as a result of the cyclists' behavior was acceptable in this particular case. Nobody is trying to set a precident such as "battery is okay when you're irritated". But the eyes of the law don't see in black and white; if this were to go to court, I imagine nothing would come of it, and it has nothing to do with with the baroness's aristocratic standing either. As has been echoed by many of the posters in this thread, given the circumstances, the baroness was in the right. There are shades of grey, Bicure, and similarly, circumstances have a significant bearing on the way laws are enforced.

So please, stop defaulting to "lolz karz = satan" for every one of your inane little posts when the topic has nothing whatsoever to do with automobiles. As far as "kager kulture" goes, it's the cyclist who is afflicted with it here, if anyone is. The old lady had the ROW, and as a pedestrian, takes the right of way over all wheeled vehicles at a crossing. The cyclist ran the red to save a few seconds or because he was lazy, putting his laziness or hurry before the law, and before the safety of those obeying it. The latter is a "kager" attitude. I find it difficult to take "advocates" such as yourself seriously, because you suggest cyclists can do no fault (not true) and you always blame everyone else for all the problems.

So no, I don't accept what your notion that motorists caused the baroness to whack a law-breaking cyclist. Where you guys come up with this crap is certainly beyond me.

You got that? :rolleyes:

trucks KILL; bicycles don't.

BIG difference.

:D

Red light runners kill; handbags don't.

BIG difference.
:D

Okay, you can save your little propaganda spiel for a thread where it's relavant. We're talking about a very specific example of a cyclist violating the law and whether or what occured as a result of the cyclists' behavior was acceptable in this particular case. Nobody is trying to set a precident such as "battery is okay when you're irritated". But the eyes of the law don't see in black and white; if this were to go to court, I imagine nothing would come of it, and it has nothing to do with with the baroness's aristocratic standing either. As has been echoed by many of the posters in this thread, given the circumstances, the baroness was in the right. There are shades of grey, Bicure, and similarly, circumstances have a significant bearing on the way laws are enforced.

So please, stop defaulting to "lolz karz = satan" for every one of your inane little posts when the topic has nothing whatsoever to do with automobiles. As far as "kager kulture" goes, it's the cyclist who is afflicted with it here, if anyone is. The old lady had the ROW, and as a pedestrian, takes the right of way over all wheeled vehicles at a crossing. The cyclist ran the red to save a few seconds or because he was lazy, putting his laziness or hurry before the law, and before the safety of those obeying it. The latter is a "kager" attitude. I find it difficult to take "advocates" such as yourself seriously, because you suggest cyclists can do no fault (not true) and you always blame everyone else for all the problems.

So no, I don't accept what your notion that motorists caused the baroness to whack a law-breaking cyclist. Where you guys come up with this crap is certainly beyond me.

You got that? :rolleyes:

Well thats not so clear, one of the perks of peerage is immunity from arrest.

If it was your grandmother who hit John Q. Cyclist in exactly the same circumstances, the court wouldn't do anything to her. They'd side with her argument that she was put in great danger, and communicated that in the only way that would get through in a split-second.

Well thats not so clear, one of the perks of peerage is immunity from arrest.

Peers are not immune from arrest where criminal matters are concerned!

Aaaaahhhh! :eek: :eek: :eek:

I'm here w/me granny, and she was VERY startled by your post, Synon.

So startled that she'll be going shopping for a baseball bat tomorrow, and she'll teach ya some manners, by crikey!

But only cuz she's startled, ya know?

I assured her that you'll be cheering her on as she beats ya, btw.

:D

RWP - MOTOR VEHICLES that run red lights kill.

Peds who batter cycs negotiating traffic may cause a death.

Startling somebody ain't grounds for battery, folks.

(Just wait'll you see them throw the book at my poor granny!) :(

Oh, wow. You're pretty desperate, aren't you? Quite a bit of hyperbole in one little post there!

Okay, first of all, an aluminum bat isn't equal to a handbag. :rolleyes: Or, I haven't seen any professional players swinging at baseballs with their mothers purse, anyway. Secondly, your grandmother won't be hitting me because I don't break the law by running red lights and violating pedestrian ROW in the first place. But if she hit me with a baseball bat, then yeah, there would be a problem. Nobody would excuse the baroness' behavior if she hit the guy with a weapon. But she hit him with a handbag not a baseball bat, you moron. There's no comparison.

You need to look up the word "circumstance". That's what all of this is based on. You seem to have difficulty understanding that the circumstances in this particular case are why other cyclists in this forum are actually okay with what transpired!

And please, just shut up. We are not, for the last time, discussing automobiles and related dangers in this thread. Stop defaulting to "karz = apocalypse" everytime you can't successfully argue your position. You keep moaning about how a pedestrian can kill a cyclist (by hitting said cyclist with a handbag, no less), but you fail to recognize that a cyclist poses a much greater danger to pedestrians, especially the elderly. You're just a cager on a bike, that's it. Newsflash: you don't cycle in a vacuum. If you run into an elderly woman with your bike, don't be surprised if she dies.

I'm so glad I can not only see in full colour but in shades of grey as well. It must suck to only be able to see in black and white.

Considering that both did something wrong, and neither were hurt, it seems like a whole lot of whacking off going on here over almost nothing.

Perhaps a bit of Haiku to frame this in some reasonable perspective:

In London there's laws,
'bout riding in the lane.
Scofflaw must beware.

Peerage, or no friends,
tough old lady hand-bagger.
Born to better times.

Young, impatient fool,
one good whacking, down he goes.
Jolly good show, ma'am.

"Should have smack'd him more,
young hoodlum on his bikey"
What would Winston say?

;)

Last week a delivery guy pushing a hand truck stepped off the curb in the middle of the block RIGHT in front of me, totally disregarding my existence even though I was cracking along the narrow street at 18 mph. Did I whip out my frame pump and smash his cell phone against his head like I would have LOVED to? No. Why not? Because I am not a privileged, spoiled, royal turd that can get away with assault because a Jaywalker startled me.

Another reason - I didn't have time to do anything but avoid the collision. Not one extra nanosecond. The "lady" in the story had time to see, plan, cock her purse, and then swing it at the rider. That's assault, plain and simple.

Last week a delivery guy pushing a hand truck stepped off the curb in the middle of the block RIGHT in front of me, totally disregarding my existence even though I was cracking along the narrow street at 18 mph. Did I whip out my frame pump and smash his cell phone against his head like I would have LOVED to? No. Why not? Because I am not a privileged, spoiled, royal turd that can get away with assault because a Jaywalker startled me.

Another reason - I didn't have time to do anything but avoid the collision. Not one extra nanosecond. The "lady" in the story had time to see, plan, cock her purse, and then swing it at the rider. That's assault, plain and simple.

I'd rather call her a dead-on shot. Kiplingesque if you ask me, which you aren't of course, because you are wallowing in your snot.

You should be more aware when "...cracking along the narrow street at 18mph." "Not one extra nanosecond." You indict yourself of stupidity, plain and simple.

You indict yourself of stupidity, plain and simple.

And what exactly have you just indicted yourself with here? The speed limit on the narrow street is 20mph. 18 would be a careful speed assuming mindless knuckleheads don't jump out into the roadway without concern. Don't blame the victim if he/she is acting within the law and reasonable with the situation. Had I better lineage and hit him with a handbag full of hammers, would you then applaud me?

I resist the temptation to type words that would get me banned sir.

And what exactly have you just indicted yourself with here? The speed limit on the narrow street is 20mph. 18 would be a careful speed assuming mindless knuckleheads don't jump out into the roadway without concern. Don't blame the victim if he/she is acting within the law and reasonable with the situation. Had I better lineage and hit him with a handbag full of hammers, would you then applaud me?

I resist the temptation to type words that would get me banned sir.

I've been plenty stupid on occasion, so I'm not setting myself higher than the next guy. However, using your descriptors, I can only deduce that there was a lack of foresight on your part. Sure, the delivery guy commited a foul - s##t happens. That's why I say, again using your narrative, that there was a lack of awareness on your part. 18 in a 20 is only safe and reasonable as long as there are no visible potential hazards. Even if that guy was standing still, I would consider him a potential as long as there was no eye contact.

Consider the foolish and common habit of bike commuters who routinely ride to the right in an angle-in parking zone. It's a rear-out collision just waiting to happen. A more skilled and aware rider will ride to the left side until the zone is passed in order to aviod the potential hazard.

It's the same thing about people on sidewalks when a bike is transiting at higher speeds. Not only can they usually not hear you coming, you are also going too fast to gradually enter their peripheral range of vision. Ya gotta watch carefully in order to gain those nanoseconds that you didn't have. Expect the unexpected. Bike crashing is a Full Contact Experience and it always hurts. It's on you. The ped has the ROW.

Well thats not so clear, one of the perks of peerage is immunity from arrest.

So how come Lord Archer, successful author (terrible writer of English, but writes page-turners I'm told) was put inside for perjury?

Joeybike Because I am not a privileged, spoiled, royal turd that can get away with assault because a Jaywalker startled me.

Do please read my previous post. The lady is a life peer - a peerage created for political reasons. Such peerages are not inheritable. The reasons for not charging her were:

a) No complaint as to her behaviour was made by the traumatised victim of this appalling assault
b) No magistrates court is going to convict her of assault (or battery as some of the more absurd claims would have) and the odds are she would be applauded in the media and something over 95% (at a guess) of the public would applaud her.

Another reason - I didn't have time to do anything but avoid the collision. Not one extra nanosecond. The "lady" in the story had time to see, plan, cock her purse, and then swing it at the rider. That's assault, plain and simple.

Or, to put it another way, she glimpsed a rider coming towards her and swung, instinctively, at someone she believed might endanger her.

By the way, how, exactly, do you cock a purse?

JoeyBike wrote:

"Last week a delivery guy pushing a hand truck stepped off the curb in the middle of the block RIGHT in front of me, totally disregarding my existence even though I was cracking along the narrow street at 18 mph. Did I whip out my frame pump and smash his cell phone against his head like I would have LOVED to? No. Why not? Because I am not a privileged, spoiled, royal turd that can get away with assault because a Jaywalker startled me.

Another reason - I didn't have time to do anything but avoid the collision. Not one extra nanosecond. The "lady" in the story had time to see, plan, cock her purse, and then swing it at the rider. That's assault, plain and simple."

And he is thus my hero! (He gets it, plain & simple.)

Synon wrote:

"you moron."

and

"just shut up."

And really, in the face of such overwhelming eloquence & logic, what can I say?

;)

How do you think I'm going to evalute you when you say "purse = baseball bat"? How isn't that moronic? Do explain.

A purse and a baseball bat are both objects.

The woman struck a cyclist with an OBJECT. I don't care if it was a pillow or a battle axe. Neither would a judge.

A purse and a baseball bat are both objects.

The woman struck a cyclist with an OBJECT. I don't care if it was a pillow or a battle axe. Neither would a judge.

Someone threw a marshmallow at me from a bridge and it struck me. I demand that the DA prosecute the miscreant just as he would if he had thrown a concrete block. They are both OBJECTS and I could have swerved and come off in my startlement.

In any case, if he had come off, it would have allowed a member of the public to detain him until the police arrived, so her action was justified:rolleyes:

I am going to start a new thread titled "Do you carry a handbag while riding". We could then discuss the relative merits of a Gucci or a Miu Miu and whether a handloaded half-brick or a sock full of lead shot was better, not to mention the different type of carry strap and whether a waistband hindered its swift usage (or cocking).

Ps. Is it my imagination, or do a small and prejudiced handful of forumers complain bitterly about near misses by drivers breaking the law? And don't an absolutley tiny number of them respond by hitting motor vehicle, possibly startling the driver into making a mistake and crashing?

Nah. Just imagining it.

I have been known to, in retaliation, kick a vehicle as I caught it at a traffic light. Being startled, and then angry, I chose violence to solve my problem. People have a tendancy towards violence when a percieved threat is upon them. This does not excuse the action of the Baronness, but it does explain why she did it. Ultimately, no harm was done to the Baronness, and no major injuries occurred to the bicyclist (as far as we know). Hopefully, the biker will think twice about breaking this particlular law again, and the old woman will not hold this against all bikers. Unfortunatly, violence doesn't usually lead to this outcome, but we can still hope.

So how come Lord Archer, successful author (terrible writer of English, but writes page-turners I'm told) was put inside for perjury?

Joeybike

Do please read my previous post. The lady is a life peer - a peerage created for political reasons. Such peerages are not inheritable. The reasons for not charging her were:

a) No complaint as to her behaviour was made by the traumatised victim of this appalling assault
b) No magistrates court is going to convict her of assault (or battery as some of the more absurd claims would have) and the odds are she would be applauded in the media and something over 95% (at a guess) of the public would applaud her.



Or, to put it another way, she glimpsed a rider coming towards her and swung, instinctively, at someone she believed might endanger her.

By the way, how, exactly, do you cock a purse?

To the Royalist defenders, I give you:

SEX PISTOLS LYRICS

"God Save The Queen"

God save the queen
The fascist regime
They made you a moron
Potential H-bomb

God save the queen
She ain't no human being
There is no future
In England's dreaming

Don't be told what you want
Don't be told what you need
There's no future, no future,
No future for you

God save the queen
We mean it man
We love our queen
God saves

God save the queen
'Cause tourists are money
And our figurehead
Is not what she seems

Oh God save history
God save your mad parade
Oh Lord God have mercy
All crimes are paid

When there's no future
How can there be sin
We're the flowers in the dustbin
We're the poison in your human machine
We're the future, your future

God save the queen
We mean it man
We love our queen
God saves

God save the queen
We mean it man
And there is no future
In England's dreaming

No future, no future,
No future for you
No future, no future,
No future for me

No future, no future,
No future for you
No future, no future
For you

Just when it seemed this thread was spent, we get another song... Cool.

You Americans truly are the original "Richard Heads"!

And based on your username and sig you aspire to be one.

Someone threw a marshmallow at me from a bridge and it struck me. I demand that the DA prosecute the miscreant just as he would if he had thrown a concrete block. They are both OBJECTS and I could have swerved and come off in my startlement.

In any case, if he had come off, it would have allowed a member of the public to detain him until the police arrived, so her action was justified:rolleyes:

I am going to start a new thread titled "Do you carry a handbag while riding". We could then discuss the relative merits of a Gucci or a Miu Miu and whether a handloaded half-brick or a sock full of lead shot was better, not to mention the different type of carry strap and whether a waistband hindered its swift usage (or cocking).

Ps. Is it my imagination, or do a small and prejudiced handful of forumers complain bitterly about near misses by drivers breaking the law? And don't an absolutley tiny number of them respond by hitting motor vehicle, possibly startling the driver into making a mistake and crashing?

Nah. Just imagining it.

:lol::beer: Now that's illiteration, not that tripe from The Sex Pistols