Advocacy & Safety - Baronness whacked scofflaw cyclist with her handbag

An English Baronness in London saw a cyclist running a red light near where she was standing and delivered a blow to him with her handbag as he passed. She said she wished she had hit him harder. She is not anti-cyclist, just against those who ignore the law. Read the story here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=508136&in_page_id=1770).

As a Baroness, she got her title through an accident of sperm. Does the same accident of sperm also give her police power?

She should be prosecuted for assualt.

As a Baroness, she got her title through an accident of sperm. Does the same accident of sperm also give her police power?

She should be prosecuted for assualt.

Let me see, the lady (age 83) was on a signal controlled crossing with the green light in her favour. Numpty cyclist ignores his red light and sails straight across in front of her. He assaulted her, actually, since his behaviour caused her fear for her own safety, which is, in the UK at least, the definition of assault.

Unless, of course, you consider lawbreaking by cyclists to be acceptable, simply by reason of being on a bike.

He was an idiot and a selfish one at that.

Yesterday, I was interviewed on the same local radio programme as Lady Sharples and was forced to defend cyclists from the kinds of ignoramuses who commented on the Daily Mail story,including someone from the Association of British Drivers, a group who are incensed by speed cameras and believe that drivers are unfairly targeted by the law.

Since cyclists who ignore red lights and ride on the pavement (sidewalk to you) are far more visible than the idiot drivers who routinely ignore the speed limit and amber gamble, we suffer disproportionately from public disapproval. Even when I quoted the 530 pedestrians killed on crossing 1998-2005 thro' collisions with motor vehicles, as against the 3 killed in collisions with cyclists, I was fighting against the general run of phone calls and texts.

No matter how unfair this weight of criticism against us is, we need to break this too frequent habit of ignoring the law (when it suits us) or we lose the political battle. Public perception is all when you are campaigning for better treatment of riders and every pillock who does what this rider did makes it difficult for campaigners to win their case, no matter how justified it is.

I hope that you will maintain the same irate views against a lady in her position if your grandmother's safety is threatened by similar lawbreaking arrogance

Another reason that we Americans are lucky--we don't have a class of inbred overprivileged human breeding stock to defer to!

If members of the aristocracy continue to deliver handbag blows to red light runners I might have to reconsider my anti-royalist stand.

Three cheers for the Baroness!

Good on her. If your gonna jump a light. (Something I commonly do) At least make sure you're clear of peds on the far side or in the crosswalk. I will totally give room to crossing peds. It's their ROW afterall.

Since cyclists who ignore red lights and ride on the pavement (sidewalk to you) are far more visible than the idiot drivers who routinely ignore the speed limit and amber gamble, we suffer disproportionately from public disapproval. Even when I quoted the 530 pedestrians killed on crossing 1998-2005 thro' collisions with motor vehicles, as against the 3 killed in collisions with cyclists, I was fighting against the general run of phone calls and texts.

Are they really more *visible*? Or were your callers (motorists?) looking to raise an issue that would only require someone else to change their behavior?


Buzzing the pedestrian (if the description here was accurate) was way out of line, he deserved the purse to the head.

Good for her. Her title is immaterial in this case. Anyone could/should have done this if they felt their safety was jeopardized.

Good on her. If your gonna jump a light. (Something I commonly do) At least make sure you're clear of peds on the far side or in the crosswalk. I will totally give room to crossing peds. It's their ROW afterall.

Totally agreed. On some of small side streets I ride on to get to work I will roll through a stop sign is there is no one around, but if there is any sort of traffic in the area I will definitely stop completely. As far as traffic lights go, I will NEVER run them unless the light turning sesor is clearly broken and the light refuses to switch. I wanted the BBC program dealing with various aspects of traffic in the UK that was posted on this forum yesterday @ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2338091070755237169 . When you see how the cyclists just run the red and force their way through pedestrians it makes me sick. That is a great way to lose all respect from pedestrians and motorists alike. I grew up in Holland and j-walking is almost a way of life, but at least people move on-mass against the traffic on foot or on bikes then the roads are empty... not to try to bowl over a pedestrian.

Happy riding,
André

...and at 83 too... man, a fall, busted hip or worse & cyclist is a screwed pooch. Save the ped runs for the Alleycats, at least you're racing then. Although I am not particularity interested in motorist respect, they make it quite clear I am beneath their dignity to even bother looking out for us so the roadways in the city are an open game still.

Crosswalks intersections and Kids!!! Jwalkers for the fun of it. ;)
thanks for the link, i'll watch that later this evening.

Let me see, the lady (age 83) was on a signal controlled crossing with the green light in her favour. Numpty cyclist ignores his red light and sails straight across in front of her. He assaulted her, actually, since his behaviour caused her fear for her own safety, which is, in the UK at least, the definition of assault.

Unless, of course, you consider lawbreaking by cyclists to be acceptable, simply by reason of being on a bike.

He was an idiot and a selfish one at that.

Yesterday, I was interviewed on the same local radio programme as Lady Sharples and was forced to defend cyclists from the kinds of ignoramuses who commented on the Daily Mail story,including someone from the Association of British Drivers, a group who are incensed by speed cameras and believe that drivers are unfairly targeted by the law.

Since cyclists who ignore red lights and ride on the pavement (sidewalk to you) are far more visible than the idiot drivers who routinely ignore the speed limit and amber gamble, we suffer disproportionately from public disapproval. Even when I quoted the 530 pedestrians killed on crossing 1998-2005 thro' collisions with motor vehicles, as against the 3 killed in collisions with cyclists, I was fighting against the general run of phone calls and texts.

No matter how unfair this weight of criticism against us is, we need to break this too frequent habit of ignoring the law (when it suits us) or we lose the political battle. Public perception is all when you are campaigning for better treatment of riders and every pillock who does what this rider did makes it difficult for campaigners to win their case, no matter how justified it is.

I hope that you will maintain the same irate views against a lady in her position if your grandmother's safety is threatened by similar lawbreaking arrogance

It was not an act of defense, she says herself that she was swinging for him and wanted to hit him even harder. Clearly she was in no real danger if she had the time to contemplate smacking him. If he had knocked her over and she smacked him, fine. But thats not what happened here.

So how about running after someone and pushing them off their bikes when they run a red? According to your argument, this would be perfectly acceptable. Her actions were vigilante justice, done by a woman that because of her accident of birth, thinks she is better than everyone else and can do anything to the common people..

Are they really more *visible*? Or were your callers (motorists?) looking to raise an issue that would only require someone else to change their behavior?


Buzzing the pedestrian (if the description here was accurate) was way out of line, he deserved the purse to the head.

Well of course he buzzed her; the free swinging Baroness said so! No possibility that someone of royal blood (or anyone else) who took vigilante action against a cyclist might have been wrong, eh?:rolleyes:

From the way things sound over there (various sources), this likely isn't the first time a cyclist playing "Buzz the Ped" has happened to her, giving plenty of time to contemplate retaliation. I don't blame her, I blame the cyclists. I'd get fed up with it, too.

Can't put him on a pedestal just because he rides a bike.

Another reason that we Americans are lucky--we don't have a class of inbred overprivileged human breeding stock to defer to!


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

Well of course he buzzed her; the free swinging Baroness said so! No possibility that someone of royal blood (or anyone else) who took vigilante action against a cyclist might have been wrong, eh?:rolleyes:

If she managed to hit him with her handbag, then of course he buzzed her. What do you think happened? She chased him down to hit him?

It was not an act of defense, ...blah, blah, blah.... Her actions were vigilante justice, done by a woman that because of her accident of birth, thinks she is better than everyone else and can do anything to the common people..

An old lady swatted him with a handbag for christ's sake! You make it sound like she pulled out her .44 magnum and blasted him.

And she did it because he deserved it, not because she thought she was "better than everyone else".

+1

I'd give the old lady some slack here - lots of cyclists on this forum talk about injuring drivers who do the same thing that this cyclist did to the baroness. At 83, being hit by a cyclist could easily be fatal, just like being hit by a car could be. What she did, in this particular case, is fine in my book. If you don't break the law, you won't have this sort of problem. it's that simple.

God bless her. Wish we had people like her here.

Paul

He should consider himself lucky not to be in serious trouble for messing with the ....capital 'A' Aristocracy.
I believe being well versed in sport shot guns for skeet shooting is a rule for that class of humans....:lol:

...And she did it because he deserved it, not because she thought she was "better than everyone else".
Exactly. The fact that she's a Baroness is not relevant to the story. The headline was, "Tory baroness, 84, uses handbag to whack cyclist who jumped a red light." It could have read "White woman, 84, uses handbag to whack cyclist who jumped a red light," or "Old woman, 84, uses handbag to whack cyclist who jumped a red light." None of those characterizations are relevant to the story. "Pedestrian Strikes Cyclist," would have been just as accurate, but would the story draw the readers without the sensationalism?

someone else[/I] to change their behavior?

Yes, they are more visible, otherwise there would be an even greater number of complaints about drivers, since they're in the vast majority.

Do you think that there wouldn't be the same blizzard of criticisms if cars pushed themselves through/past groups of pedestrians on crossings or drove along pavements (sidewalks) on a frequent basis?

Do cars jump red lights in large numbers? Yes, but they're more likely to do it while amber gambling and misjudging the timing (been there, done that, got the t-shirt - on rare occasions), so it's not as noticeable as a rider crossing when the lights have been on red for a while and squeezing thro' a gap in the crossing traffic. Do such riders do it recklessly? No, but they're still breaking the law and doing it in full view of drivers and pedestrians alike.

On every occasion I've been called into the local radio station (not because I'm a famous cyclist, but once you're on their "rentaquote" list, you're there for life and I'm retired, so easy to get hold of), the complaints against cyclists are much the same - jump red lights, ignore crossings, ride on pavements, ride wrong way on one-way streets, etc., etc.

And they don't really complain about the danger (except for pavement riding), but about cyclists' perceived, and often real, contempt for the law when it suits them, while, at the same time, cyclists go endlessly on about drivers flouting the law. Hypocrisy is not a pretty sight, nor does it help the case of campaigners trying to make road design safer and driver behaviour better and more understanding of cyclists rights and needs.


Buzzing the pedestrian (if the description here was accurate) was way out of line, he deserved the purse to the head.

Glad to agree with you on this.

Other comments on this post about her being an aristocrat, inbred, etc., are ridiculous. Her peerage was a modern, created one and was not, therefore, inherited or inheritable. Neither did she express the opinion that she was superior to the "common people". Her complaint was against an idiot who believed that he could ride straight across the path of a pedestrian who had right of way, by reason of the lights being green in her favour and her reaction was understandable. It is, furthermore, a common experience of pedestrians in London, so common, in fact, that programmes on the subject pull in scores and sometimes 100s of similar complaints

Or do I have it wrong about people on this forum - I seem to recall the occasional post about reacting to poor and illegal driver behaviour by spontaneous thumping of doors, windows, mirrors, sometimes with a U-lock. Oh, I'm sorry, that's ok because we're cyclists and are therefore morally superior to "cagers", aren't we.

Fools like him are so visibly breaking the law that they give ammunition to those who would prefer us not to be on the road, namely a considerable proportion of motorists. If, with only a few exceptions, riders were seen to be law abiding, we could concentrate our public arguments in the media on the people who are the real danger on our roads, instead of having to waste our airtime trying to counter the general opinion of cyclists as scofflaws.

I repeat what I said in my first post. The fact that, during 1998-2005 530 pedestrians were killed in collision with motor vehicles and only 3 with cyclists, went by the board in the blizzard of texts, emails and phone calls against cyclists.

And if such behaviour is justified, as it so often is on this forum, how come that US cyclists seem more likely to be at fault in MV/bike collisions in higher percentages than in most other places that I've been able to find figures on over the years? In the UK, which has some similarities in public perception on cyclists to the US, the Dept of Transport shows that drivers are responsible for something like 65% of all collisions, a rather higher figure than the US. One survey, carried out by the Automobile Association even put the number at 70%

I doubt very much if many of the RLJers on this and other forums (inc UK) have ever tried to campaign in any useful way in tedious meetings with councillors, council officers and other organisations. They simply go on their merry law-breaking way, making life difficult for those of us who do.

"Or do I have it wrong about people on this forum - I seem to recall the occasional post about reacting to poor and illegal driver behaviour by spontaneous thumping of doors, windows, mirrors, sometimes with a U-lock. Oh, I'm sorry, that's ok because we're cyclists and are therefore morally superior to "cagers", aren't we."

I will say that while both groups shatters traffic laws on a regular basis, any thumping I do is a communications tool designed to stop someone from drifting over and phasing me out of existence possibly, not damage the car. I have a lovely pair of CF knuckled DH gloves to tap body panels with, resonates nicely inside and no banging, just a tap. In riding the city streets I have become accustomed to being invisible to motorists, and ride accordingly. I will still go through the red if I can to gain the upper hand on the inevitable race behind me for lane position. BUT peds are always in consideration.

In recognizing cause and effect, and/or POTENTIAL damage and havok, car beats bike every single time. So yea we may be scofflaws but it really is a case of survival at it's core. When I'm ahead I have no fear of becoming dead. Riding beside traffic is when your gonna get killed.

We bikes are grouper fish in with the sharks.

Yes, they are more visible, otherwise there would be an even greater number of complaints about drivers, since they're in the vast majority.

Do you really think that motorists are going to lobby for stepped-up enforcement of motor vehicle laws?

You're right motorists have the same attitude that exists in the cycling community... "we all break the law a little bit, what's the harm really?".. except we have physics working in our favor, they just have majority rule.

I cannot speak for the U.K. but here, as TJ notes, pretty much all road user groups, be it cars, trucks, bikes, or pedestrians, have those that show general contempt for the law, in roughly equal measure. And they all should probably get tickets, but for people to push for enforcement based on so-called flagrancy, rather than safety, is utterly bizarre.

The only motorists that seem particularly upset with my riding are the ones who have to change lanes to pass me. Although some drivers get real upset if I do a complete stop at a stopsign when they are behind me.

And it's odd that everyone is so upset about riding on the sidewalk, given how often drivers scream at me to "get on the sidewalk".

There was a cyclist who nearly ran over a friends foot, and laughed at me and my friend because he almost hit us while we were on the sidewalk waiting to cross (the city we were in allows bikes to use the sidewalk)_. he deserved a whooping but unfortunately (fortunately for him) my friend is a liberal against confronting jerks. My blood was boiling, not only for this jerk being a jerk, but because I'm a responsible cyclist and idiots like him make a bad name for everyone. I still want to wipe the smile off his face.

Hmmmm, maybe I should not tell people on another forum that what they want to do to trespassers is wrong, because, after all, the trespassers deserve it.

Let me see, the lady (age 83) was on a signal controlled crossing with the green light in her favour. Numpty cyclist ignores his red light and sails straight across in front of her. He assaulted her, actually, since his behaviour caused her fear for her own safety, which is, in the UK at least, the definition of assault.

Unless, of course, you consider lawbreaking by cyclists to be acceptable, simply by reason of being on a bike.

He was an idiot and a selfish one at that.

Yesterday, I was interviewed on the same local radio programme as Lady Sharples and was forced to defend cyclists from the kinds of ignoramuses who commented on the Daily Mail story,including someone from the Association of British Drivers, a group who are incensed by speed cameras and believe that drivers are unfairly targeted by the law.

Since cyclists who ignore red lights and ride on the pavement (sidewalk to you) are far more visible than the idiot drivers who routinely ignore the speed limit and amber gamble, we suffer disproportionately from public disapproval. Even when I quoted the 530 pedestrians killed on crossing 1998-2005 thro' collisions with motor vehicles, as against the 3 killed in collisions with cyclists, I was fighting against the general run of phone calls and texts.

No matter how unfair this weight of criticism against us is, we need to break this too frequent habit of ignoring the law (when it suits us) or we lose the political battle. Public perception is all when you are campaigning for better treatment of riders and every pillock who does what this rider did makes it difficult for campaigners to win their case, no matter how justified it is.

I hope that you will maintain the same irate views against a lady in her position if your grandmother's safety is threatened by similar lawbreaking arrogance

you're wrong about cyclists being 'more visible', they are just a minority that's easy to pick on. Plus the motorists all have cognitive dissonance when it comes time to identify their own law breaking habits as compared to cyclists'

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_03/BaronessLL1401_468x389.jpg

She should have used her control over the forces of magnetism to restrain the bicycle itself.

Another reason that we Americans are lucky--we don't have a class of inbred overprivileged human breeding stock to defer to!
Goodness, Have you looked at the state of the nation lately ??:D
Even scarier is they are looking to go for license plates on bicycles there. Perish the thought.

As a Baroness, she got her title through an accident of sperm.

Semen wasn't involved - she's a life peer, not a hereditary peer.

Be careful with that one... You've been run by two families since 1989 and that might not end any time soon.Hey, I was going to post that! :D

-J

If members of the aristocracy continue to deliver handbag blows to red light runners I might have to reconsider my anti-royalist stand.

Three cheers for the Baroness!

Best post. As a London cyclist I love this lady. :)

Semen wasn't involved - she's a life peer, not a hereditary peer.

So who votes fpor a life peer?

So who votes fpor a life peer?

The PM and the House of Lords Appointments Commission. But as a prole, I don't know much about the honours system.

The PM and the House of Lords Appointments Commission. But as a prole, I don't know much about the honours system.

Oh, so the public doesn't vote for her? Ah, so its bunch of in-breds who claim political power because of an accident of sperm (because a place in the house of Lords can only be inheritied) that appoint her, right?

I was so wrong and I stand so corrected that she doesn't get her peerage through an accident of sperm, she only gets her peerage by being appointed by those who derive political power from an accident of sperm.

Oh, so the public doesn't vote for her? Ah, so its bunch of in-breds who claim political power because of an accident of sperm (because a place in the house of Lords can only be inheritied) that appoint her, right?

I was so wrong and I stand so corrected that she doesn't get her peerage through an accident of sperm, she only gets her peerage by being appointed by those who derive political power from an accident of sperm.

As previously explained, there are life peers and hereditary peers - the House of Lords is constituted of both types...

The Commission has non-partisan members and non-peers as well as representatives from the House of Lords of the three largest political parties.

all cities have rude cyclists. but it's not appropriate to make cyclists scapegoats for rude behavior all the time by all kinds of people.

As previously explained, there are life peers and hereditary peers - the House of Lords is constituted of both types...

The Commission has non-partisan members and non-peers as well as representatives from the House of Lords of the three largest political parties.

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

My guess is the peerage of Self Righteous No Neck Know-It-Alls; this group also has a large contingent in the US. It is found in the form of screaming, bear can throwing Jackasses, who also feel entitled to physically/verbally "inform " cyclists of their displeasure with the sight of any cyclist "in the way."

I know you're serious, because you're iltb. But you do realize that you are comparing aplles to oranges, do you not? Because in the case of the Baroness, we have an 83 year old woman with the right of way who was nearly hit by a bicyclist. Now, maybe you haven't realized this, but old people are often frail. Had mister Saintly Cyclist hit the Baroness, she could have easily sustained severe injury, or even have been killed. You say somehow Saintly Cyclist here was being wronged because the Baroness essentially pelted him with beer cans and rude comments from her Ford F-150 in southern Alabama, even though he broke the law and almost caused a collision.

Do you even read your own bull****? Now, if a car had cut of the cyclist with the right of way, you'd probably say they should be shot to death. But when a cyclist does the same exact thing to a vulnerable elderly road user, it's okay. Double standards much?

Just shut up.

I know you're serious, because you're iltb. But you do realize that you are comparing aplles to oranges, do you not? Because in the case of the Baroness, we have an 83 year old woman with the right of way who was nearly hit by a bicyclist. Now, maybe you haven't realized this...
Just shut up.

Yeah, dat's right Jack! Shut uppa my face so you can read nothing but your peer approved "Group Think" contempt about all those other cyclists, eh?

It must be true because you read it on the Internet (extracted from a British Tabloid , no less!)that it happened just da way the apple headed baroness with an agenda said it happened didn't it, eh? Just like the orange headed smart jacks like yourself and raisin brained car shouters believe too whenever you/they hear/read a report of a cyclist doing wrong in one of your peer's eyes, eh?

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".

There's no groupthink (it's one word) here, buddy. I'm simply not paranoid like you clearly are. I know you can't stand it, but guess what: cyclists aren't the infallible gods of the road. If you don't want to get hit with purse, don't violate an old womans ROW. Most importantly, though, if the idea of getting hit with a purse would make you petty and childish for jumping lights, maybe you should change your ways.

I can't believe you're even arguing this. Oh wait, yes I can! You're iltb, so logic isn't required for anything, at all, ever.

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

My guess is the peerage of Self Righteous No Neck Know-It-Alls; this group also has a large contingent in the US. It is found in the form of screaming, bear can throwing Jackasses, who also feel entitled to physically/verbally "inform " cyclists of their displeasure with the sight of any cyclist "in the way."

Close, but no cigar. She was actually inducted into The Ancient Order of the Anti-Velocipedes (founded 1872).

So he jumped the light and violated the ROW of a little old lady?

He would have deserved it if she had, had Cadbury clothesline him.

So he jumped the light and violated the ROW of a little old lady?

He would have deserved it if she had, had Cadbury clothesline him.

As would any cyclist who offends anybody's sensibilities, if Mr or Mrs Anybody thought it was appropriate, right?:rolleyes:

There's no groupthink (it's one word) here, buddy. I'm simply not paranoid like you clearly are. I know you can't stand it, but guess what: cyclists aren't the infallible gods of the road. If you don't want to get hit with purse, don't violate an old womans ROW. Most importantly, though, if the idea of getting hit with a purse would make you petty and childish for jumping lights, maybe you should change your ways.

I can't believe you're even arguing this. Oh wait, yes I can! You're iltb, so logic isn't required for anything, at all, ever.
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?

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.
Having read a bunch of your posts, I have a fairly good idea about what your general attitudes towards things are. And I "know" that this irritates you; the very way in which you're responding, basically saying that the media are lying because it's a cyclist vs. world situation, just as is every day on the bike. Your posts reek of hyperbole, and I've therefore made some conclusions about your position, based on what you've written! Do I concretely "know" anything? I guess not. You don't know anything either, however, so I don't see why you're criticizing me for doing the same thing you are: posting opinion and theory.

As far as responding to you goes, you say some things that I think are pretty rediculous. You seem paranoid, because you insist that it is never the fault of the cyclist, even when they're breaking the law. When this is mentioned, you say that everyone else is lying about the cyclist breaking the law, and the entire series of events that followed. Why? Because society absolutely hates cyclists, and will crush them given any opportunity to do so.

There really is no "groupthink" here in A&S. If I wanted to "suppress your voice", I'd put you on ignore. But I won't do that, because I participate in this forum to get multiple viewpoints. That doesn't mean all are equal, however, and if I'm not obligated to believe what I think is insane. Like some of the things you say, for example.


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?
Again, like I said, I have spent time in London, and given that experience, I think it is highly probable that a cyclist, in fact, jumped a red and almost hit a pedestrian. I saw a few similar occurances during my few weeks there last summer. While in general, I would think hitting someone for jumping a red light is rediculous, this is an old woman who hit the guy with her purse. Seriously, I doubt it was a savage beating, or even enough to threaten stability. And as I've said, an elderly person getting hit by a cyclist could easily be fatal or cause serious injury. Why? So one cyclist could save a few seconds. It's the same thing I hear cyclists complaing about in regards to motorists, and it's obviously a valid complaint. However, it's a two way street, and cyclists should not be jumping lights and endangering pedestrians.

You still haven't addressed any of that. You're just getting technical because you have nothing to say in regard to the actual subject at hand. Please contribute to the thread in your next post!

You still haven't addressed any of that. You're just getting technical because you have nothing to say in regard to the actual subject at hand. Please contribute to the thread in your next post!
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.

As would any cyclist who offends anybody's sensibilities, if Mr or Mrs Anybody thought it was appropriate, right?:rolleyes:
Nope, only if they are violating someone else's ROW. Since you don't know what that is, I'll explain it. If you are passing within arms reach of someone, you are in their space.

Now there are situations where this is acceptable, but obviously in the incident related in the OP, this was not one of those situations.

"Cadbury, clothesline that brute!"
"Yes Ma'am."
thud!
WHUMP!
:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

Do I concretely "know" anything? I guess not.
Don't worry about it, he just likes to argue. What he's arguing about and with whom are irrelevant to him.

They are both wrong.

Another reason that we Americans are lucky--we don't have a class of inbred overprivileged human breeding stock to defer to!

Oh yeah, there's no class system in our country.:rolleyes:

He's lucky he's not in this country, some mouth breather would have more likely have shot him.
If he's close enough for her to hit him with her handbag, he's too close. I use the same logic when folks cut me off when I'm walking in a crosswalk. If I can reach your car your too close.