Commuting - Bus driver exonerated after punches cyclist!

Is anyone aware of it becoming legal to assault someone if they torment you? This incident "below" happened in my city. Does this mean if a car driver hurls abuse at a cyclist in our city, the cyclist is legally able to punch them in the face? OR do we possibly have a double standard?


A bus driver who punched a cyclist in the face after he called him fat and stupid in a peak hour road rage incident has been acquitted in a Brisbane court.

Leon James Zahnow, 36, admitted punching 57-year-old Gregory Ralph Jardine, snapping his glasses in two and leaving him bleeding, in the inner-city suburb Paddington on December 10, 2009, the Brisbane Times reports.

But Mr Zahnow pleaded not guilty to one charge of assault occasioning bodily harm on the grounds he was provoked.

He told the Brisbane District Court yesterday that he only hit the cyclist after he was called "fat and stupid".

It should never be OK to solve your problems with violence.

Also, don't be surprised if, after you call someone "fat and stupid", they punch you.

It should never be OK to solve your problems with violence.

Also, don't be surprised if, after you call someone "fat and stupid", they punch you.

I agree, neither was in the right. If you are going to verbally assault someone don't expect them to be the one to turn the other cheek, not everyone is good at the name calling.

Call someone fat and stupid and all bets are off. Physicsl assault is not much worse than that type of immature verbal assault.

I would like to hear the whole story. While it may not be a good idea to call someone fat and or stupid it is not a good reason to punch someone.

He deserved to be punched.

If you're going to sink to that level, you have it coming.

If you knew that every time you started running your mouth and acting like an idiot then you'd get thumped, the world would be a much nicer place.

Kind of like the phrase, "an armed society is a polite society."

People please! Words are just words! Words can be stated out of frustration, anger, ignorance, etc...

Words can be smoothed over and apologized for, ever having been stated.

Just think of your siblings, spouses, and parents. Think of all the ungodly things they've ever said to you...

Did you then just haul off and punch them for it?

When dealing with the public, you never know who or what you may encounter. Some people are stricken by senility, some by immaturity, some by mental-illness, and some people, just left a scene where they were already irritated. They were primed for the oncoming event.

In a civilized society, we don't just punch someone because of words...

- Slim :)

From the small snippet of the story you posted we are not getting the full set of details. Just because he pleaded not guilty does not mean the courts are going to find him to be.

People please! Words are just words! Words can be stated out of frustration, anger, ignorance, etc...

Words can be smoothed over and apologized for, ever having been stated.

Just think of your siblings, spouses, and parents. Think of all the ungodly things they've ever said to you...

Did you then just haul off and punch them for it?

When dealing with the public, you never know who or what you may encounter. Some people are stricken by senility, some by immaturity, some by mental-illness, and some people, just left a scene where they were already irritated. They were primed for the oncoming event.

In a civilized society, we don't just punch someone because of words...

- Slim :)

+1

What's next?

"Judge, I'm sorry about my pulling out the 44 mag and shooting him, since he did make some derogatory remarks toward me".

No it's not legal to hit someone, just because they said something. All we know is that he pleaded not guilty. The trial or plea bargaining had not happened yet, at the time of the printing of that story. We have no idea what will happen in court later.

Just because he pleaded not guilty does not mean the courts are going to find him to be.


All we know is that he pleaded not guilty. The trial or plea bargaining had not happened yet, at the time of the printing of that story. We have no idea what will happen in court later.

From the original post:

A bus driver who punched a cyclist in the face after he called him fat and stupid in a peak hour road rage incident has been acquitted in a Brisbane court.

I would like to hear the whole story. While it may not be a good idea to call someone fat and or stupid it is not a good reason to punch someone.


From the small snippet of the story you posted we are not getting the full set of details. Just because he pleaded not guilty does not mean the courts are going to find him to be.

Here is a full story of the incident:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/provoked-bus-driver-not-guilty-of-cyclist-assault-20111026-1mjaw.html

From what the article stated, it sound like things got escalated after the cyclist interfered with the mirror and window of the bus making the driver stop, but the cyclist did pull a pen out of the bus driver shirt pocket in an attempt to get the bus registration number and prompting the driver to push him to the ground. Then the cyclist pull the pen again out of the pocket a second time with the process of calling him "fat and stupid" somwhere along the argument.

IMO, would have been best if the cyclist just get the bus registration number after stopping the bus and not having to pull the pen out of the driver pocket.

Twice the bus driver caused the cyclist bodily harm whereas twice the cyclist did not.

I wonder how many jurists in that trial commuted by automobile versus bicycle.

I think verbal abuse, insults, verbal assaults etc. are not something a man should put up with. If a man is not good with words, a reply with a good old punch in the face is 100% OK by me.

I think verbal abuse, insults, verbal assaults etc. are not something a man should put up with. If a man is not good with words, a reply with a good old punch in the face is 100% OK by me.

To think that this man is driving professionally behind the wheel of a several ton vehicle with passengers, the standards for his behavior needs to be somewhat higher than what he exhibited.

Twice the bus driver caused the cyclist bodily harm whereas twice the cyclist did not.

I wonder how many jurists in that trial commuted by automobile versus bicycle.

I bet most of those jurists commuted by bus to get to the courthouse that day. ;)

I'm not beneath thumping the side of a bus with my fist to get the attention of an idiot driver who nearly hits me. If they're close enough for me to thump the bus, then they're inside of the 3' passing zone; not an OK situation, especially with a bus.
I will not screw with their mirrors or windshield wipers because that's compromising the safety of the passengers and everyone else on the road if the driver can't see properly. I also wouldn't go and pluck things out of the driver's shirt pocket if I did get into an altercation with the driver.
The bus driver might have been in the wrong in the first place by almost hitting the rider (we don't know the specifics of that situation) but it seems to me like the cyclist deserved what he got: He picked a fight and he lost. Sorry, dude... Sack up and deal with the consequences. Go buy some band-aids and a new pair of glasses. Take some boxing lessons while you're at it.

......He picked a fight and he lost. Sorry, dude... Sack up and deal with the consequences. Go buy some band-aids and a new pair of glasses. Take some boxing lessons while you're at it.

No battery toward the bus driver on the cyclist's part, but OK for the driver to do it twice on the cyclist.

Have you raised any teenage children?

If you are gonna lip off, might be best to have enough ass in your britches to back it up.

1, Cyclist messed with bus. Provocation
2. took pen from driver without consent. provocation
3. Verbally insulted driver. Provocation.

Also, the moment the cyclist touched the driver (taking the pen from him pocket) without the drivers consent, it became assault on the part of the cyclist.

I would say the cyclist is lucky HE wasn't the one who got charged.

If you are gonna lip off, might be best to have enough ass in your britches to back it up.



Yeah, resorting to battery solves everything, take a pen from someone's pocket, throw it to the ground and they get to shove you to the ground, and then punch you in the face.

Yeah, resorting to battery solves everything, take a pen from someone's pocket, throw it to the ground and they get to shove you to the ground, and then punch you in the face.

Yes, actually they do. Its called self defense. He provoked the driver at least four times according to the story. Obviously he wasnt going to let it go. I'm lucky enough to live in a place that says I don't have to tuck tail when someone does that to me. I am allowed to stand my ground and defend myself.

The moment anyone tries to take anything out of my pocket, be it a pen or my wallet, I am legally allowed to defend myself and my property. BTW, taking the pen without permission is called theft - while "petty" to be sure, I still think its a chargeable offense.

The bus driver could have claimed self defense the first time the cyclist touched him (or his property) it took two more provocations before he acted. He actually showed more restraint than legally required.

So, the point is, if you're gonna disrespect another man buy trying to take his property and call him names, don't whine if he shows you the error of that decision.

....So, the point is, if you're gonna disrespect another man buy trying to take his property and call him names, don't whine if he shows you the error of that decision.

When one is being paid to drive professionally, especially with passengers, one needs to keep their behavior in check far better than this bus driver. Chances are that this particular bus driver's driving habits also reflected his personal behavior, possibly causing the incident with the cyclist in the first place.

I curious to see what takes place if the cyclist pursues this incident in civil court.

I would have "defended" myself against the bike rider physically assaulting my person (snatching at my pocket) independent of whether he was calling me fat and stupid at the time. The bus driver should have won. The verbal stuff is a red herring.

There are plenty of examples of bike folk getting raw deals. This isn't one. We dilute our integrity by being pre-disposed to picking one side based on wheel count. Need to look at the whole story.

There are plenty of examples of bike folk getting raw deals. This isn't one. We dilute our integrity by being pre-disposed to picking one side based on wheel count. Need to look at the whole story.

Sure, my wife or children decide to verbally abuse me, and take something out of my pocket, that gives me the right to make them sport a black eye. :rolleyes:

It's not just about wheel count.

When one is being paid to drive professionally, especially with passengers, one needs to keep their behavior in check far better than this bus driver.

Probably. He could well lose his job for this. But whether or not he violated his company's code of conduct is not a matter for the courts. And who knows, he may still be found liable in civil court.


Chances are that this particular bus driver's driving habits also reflected his personal behavior, possibly causing the incident with the cyclist in the first place.

You may be right. Most peoples don't go off like that for no reason. But...... that's guess work. That's not allowed in court and I'm not basing my opinion on guesswork. I'm basing it on the information provided above. From that information we have: the cyclist provoked him four times prior to the driver taking action. The cyclist is the aggressor and the driver is the victim.

it's interesting to me that this even went to court. A lot of times when someone punches another person, the police refuse to get involved.

Sure, my wife or children decide to verbally abuse me, and take something out of my pocket, that gives me the right to make them sport a black eye. :rolleyes:

It's not just about wheel count.

You're trying to change the facts to suit your arguement.

Let me ask you: When a stranger, who is acting aggressively, tries to take your watch/keys/wallet/pen. Whatcha gonna do?


(me, personally, I enjoy when my wife fumbles around in my pocket looking for my keys)

.....The cyclist is the aggressor and the driver is the victim.

Pulling a pen twice from someone's pocket versus being shoved down and punched in the face. I cannot go with that analogy.

Pulling a pen twice from someone's pocket versus being shoved down and punched in the face. I cannot go with that analogy.

And you are perfectly allowed to have your opinion.

Now please answer the question.

When a stranger, who is acting aggressively, tries to take your watch/keys/wallet/pen. Whatcha gonna do?

You're trying to change the facts to suit your arguement.

Let me ask you: When a stranger, who is acting aggressively, tries to take your watch/keys/wallet/pen. Whatcha gonna do?


Let's go one better, If one is going to be a professional bus driver, and if another person takes a pen from their pocket twice and throws it to the ground twice, is that grounds to resort to battery and driving away? If the cyclist started hitting the bus driver personally, then I'd say that the bus driver had every right to defend himself.

Is anyone aware of it becoming legal to assault someone if they torment you? This incident "below" happened in my city. Does this mean if a car driver hurls abuse at a cyclist in our city, the cyclist is legally able to punch them in the face? OR do we possibly have a double standard?


A bus driver who punched a cyclist in the face after he called him fat and stupid in a peak hour road rage incident has been acquitted in a Brisbane court.

Leon James Zahnow, 36, admitted punching 57-year-old Gregory Ralph Jardine, snapping his glasses in two and leaving him bleeding, in the inner-city suburb Paddington on December 10, 2009, the Brisbane Times reports.

But Mr Zahnow pleaded not guilty to one charge of assault occasioning bodily harm on the grounds he was provoked.

He told the Brisbane District Court yesterday that he only hit the cyclist after he was called "fat and stupid".

At least here in the states words alone are not enough to justify resorting to physical violence. That said, sadly if a motorist was to hit a cyclist I can see it ending the same way here as it did there.

Let's go one better, If one is going to be a professional bus driver, and if another person takes a pen from their pocket twice and throws it to the ground twice, is that grounds to resort to battery and driving away? If the cyclist started hitting the bus driver personally, then I'd say that the bus driver had every right to defend himself.

you are confusing battery with self defense.

Again: When a stranger, who is acting aggressively, tries to take your watch/keys/wallet/pen. Whatcha gonna do?

At least here in the states words alone are not enough to justify resorting to physical violence. .

In most cases that's true. However.... "hate speech".

Not to open a separate can of worms, but if you start hurling racial or religious slurs at someone and they punch you for it. They arent likely to get charged for it.

you are confusing battery with self defense.

Again: When a stranger, who is acting aggressively, tries to take your watch/keys/wallet/pen. Whatcha gonna do?

If no weapon was involved, get away from them.

Self defense is not applicable for the bus driver, the bus driver was not being physically battered, his bus and pen were.

Let's go one better, If one is going to be a professional bus driver, and if another person takes a pen from their pocket twice and throws it to the ground twice, is that grounds to resort to battery and driving away? If the cyclist started hitting the bus driver personally, then I'd say that the bus driver had every right to defend himself.

Uh, actually wasn't the cyclist trying to take the pen so that he could write down the buses identification number? Not to throw the pen on the ground?

I just read the full article, the driver of the bus according to the cyclist nearly collided with him and only made contact with the bus after that happened. And while trying to type the buses registration information into his phone attempted to take the drivers pen as a distraction.

So still the bottom line is that the driver started it by nearly colliding with the cyclist.

If no weapon was involved, get away from them.


OK, so you would run away instead of standing up for yourself. Fair enough, that's a legitimate choice. But if that wasn't legally required of the driver.... *shrug*

Again, if someone is gonna start ****, they need to make sure they have enough ass in their britches to back it up.

you are confusing battery with self defense.

Again: When a stranger, who is acting aggressively, tries to take your watch/keys/wallet/pen. Whatcha gonna do?

So you're saying that if a person is drunk and someone tries to take their keys to keep them from driving that the drunk has the "right" to hit them?

In a civilized society, we don't just punch someone because of words...


Dude. This is Australia we're talking about. Where does "civilized society" come into play here?

So you're saying that if a person is drunk and someone tries to take their keys to keep them from driving that the drunk has the "right" to hit them?

Nope. Didn't say that at all. that's a completely different set of circumstance form whats being discussed here.

But for the record, I've had to take the keys from a few drunks in my time.... and, yes, I've gotten punched for it once or twice. But I was taking their keys because they were my friends, and I was looking out for them. I knew they werent in their right minds (the whole reason I was taking their keys), so I didn't take it personally. When I was a bouncer, I tried to take a few drunks keys. If they weren't willing to give them up, I wasn't gonna fight them for it. Its really easy to get hurt in a fight, I wasn't gonna risk that for some dumb ass stranger. I just called the cops and gave them the tag numbers.

Again, if someone is gonna start ****, they need to make sure they have enough ass in their britches to back it up.

And if one has decided on driving professionally, unless their life is truely in danger, they need not take up that train of thought when dealing with the public.

If you are gonna lip off, might be best to have enough ass in your britches to back it up.

1, Cyclist messed with bus. Provocation
2. took pen from driver without consent. provocation
3. Verbally insulted driver. Provocation.

Also, the moment the cyclist touched the driver (taking the pen from him pocket) without the drivers consent, it became assault on the part of the cyclist.

I would say the cyclist is lucky HE wasn't the one who got charged.


Yes, actually they do. Its called self defense. He provoked the driver at least four times according to the story. Obviously he wasnt going to let it go. I'm lucky enough to live in a place that says I don't have to tuck tail when someone does that to me. I am allowed to stand my ground and defend myself.

The moment anyone tries to take anything out of my pocket, be it a pen or my wallet, I am legally allowed to defend myself and my property. BTW, taking the pen without permission is called theft - while "petty" to be sure, I still think its a chargeable offense.

The bus driver could have claimed self defense the first time the cyclist touched him (or his property) it took two more provocations before he acted. He actually showed more restraint than legally required.

So, the point is, if you're gonna disrespect another man buy trying to take his property and call him names, don't whine if he shows you the error of that decision.


Probably. He could well lose his job for this. But whether or not he violated his company's code of conduct is not a matter for the courts. And who knows, he may still be found liable in civil court.



You may be right. Most peoples don't go off like that for no reason. But...... that's guess work. That's not allowed in court and I'm not basing my opinion on guesswork. I'm basing it on the information provided above. From that information we have: the cyclist provoked him four times prior to the driver taking action. The cyclist is the aggressor and the driver is the victim.

Actually according to the article linked above, the driver of the bus started everything by nearly colliding with the cyclist. So using both Texas and Florida "Stand your Ground" laws, the cyclist is the one WHO was acting in self-defense, not the driver.


Crown prosecutor David Finch told the court yesterday the two men became involved in a "heated argument" after the bus nearly collided with the cyclist on Caxton Street near the Iceworks Restaurant Bar and Lounge.

But the main thing we need to keep in mind is that we shouldn't be applying the law from either Texas or Florida to this case.

And if one has decided on driving professionally, unless their life is truely in danger, they need not take up that train of thought when dealing with the public.


And I'm sure his employer will discuss that with him. But in the eyes of the law the cyclists actions rose to the level of provocation enough to acquit the driver of assault.

And the lesson from that is "if you're gonna start ****...."

Actually according to the article linked above, the driver of the bus started everything by nearly colliding with the cyclist. So using both Texas and Florida "Stand your Ground" laws, the cyclist is the one WHO was acting in self-defense, not the driver.

Self defense only applies while the danger is present. You can't chase someone down and claim self defense. well, you can claim it, but it wont hold up.




But the main thing we need to keep in mind is that we shouldn't be applying the law from either Texas or Florida to this case.
Good point.

In most cases that's true. However.... "hate speech".

Not to open a separate can of worms, but if you start hurling racial or religious slurs at someone and they punch you for it. They arent likely to get charged for it.

Even in the case of "hate speech," I think that a judge or LEO would advice that one ignore the individual and to keep moving.

I don't know about that, and I know that I am NOT willing to put it to the "test."

And I'm sure his employer will discuss that with him. But in the eyes of the law the cyclists actions rose to the level of provocation enough to acquit the driver of assault.

And the lesson from that is "if you're gonna start ****...."

The driver is now a former driver, there is no reason given in the article as to why he is no longer driving, just that he is a former driver.

The driver is now a former driver, there is no reason given in the article as to why he is no longer driving, just that he is a former driver.


Its probably a code of conduct violation to get in fistfights while on the clock. I know my ermployer frowns on it. ;)

Self defense only applies while the danger is present. You can't chase someone down and claim self defense. well, you can claim it, but it wont hold up.

Self-defense from the cyclist could/would include "thumping" on the side of the bus to get the drivers attention. It is possible that the driver after realizing that he may have done something wrong but being unwilling/able to admit it took offense as other drivers have to having "his" bus touched and when he saw the cyclist touch "his" bus got upset. And attempted to prevent the cyclist from recording the buses registration information.



Good point.

Thank you.

Self-defense from the cyclist could/would include "thumping" on the side of the bus to get the drivers attention. It is possible that the driver after realizing that he may have done something wrong but being unwilling/able to admit it took offense as other drivers have to having "his" bus touched and when he saw the cyclist touch "his" bus got upset. And attempted to prevent the cyclist from recording the buses registration information.

Yep. Entirely possible.



Thank you.

I find it easier to have civil discussions if I'm willing to concede when others have valid points.

Yep. Entirely possible.

Which if true would make all of the cyclists actions self defense and actually leave both the driver and the bus company in a weaker position.


I find it easier to have civil discussions if I'm willing to concede when others have valid points.

This is true.

The sad thing is that in this as in many other cyclist/motorist interaction we'll probably never get the whole story of what really happened. Unless everything was caught on camera somewhere. Even then we still may not get the whole story as video can be edited. Or "accidentally" erased/deleted.

The driver is now a former driver, there is no reason given in the article as to why he is no longer driving, just that he is a former driver.

Good thing, I sure wouldn't want this person wielding a multi ton bus next to me given his personal behavior. It takes to person with a very collective personality to drive a bus, something that this person seems to have lost somewhere down the line.