In San Fran, in a car, surrounded by mob of bicyclists...

Status
Not open for further replies.
The non-high road part of me pictured a fire truck sitting at the intersection and when the "mob" blows the red light you just open up the hoses and then arrest 'em while they are picking themselves up. :evil:
 
Jeez, every time I think that SF can't get to be any more of an armpit, along comes crap like this. :banghead:

Sawdust
 
.

She touched the back of a rider's tire?

Are you kidding me?

Time for some damage to the vehicle.

About 10 of the riders went down

Nice one. Tell me, does hurting people and thinking you're justified
make you feel like a big man?

News: You were in the wrong. Somebody had to break that to you, because
sound judgment seems to be lost on you.

All the anti-cyclist posts have become a bit tiresome, I'm afraid.
 
Big slick of antifreeze ought to slow em down.....



My cousin was surrounded at a light in a bad part of LA 20 years ago in his convertible saab. 5-6 guys. several pistols.

Floored it and dumped the clutch.

Ran one guy down. left him in the intersection.

Found a police car and "turned himself in"..cop said get the H*LL out of here and don't drive that car through here again.

said he was never more scared in his life.
 
Nice one. Tell me, does hurting people and thinking you're justified
make you feel like a big man?

News: You were in the wrong. Somebody had to break that to you, because
sound judgment seems to be lost on you.

Notice that the poster was in TX. In TX if a person runs a light they are in the wrong. I think the fact that he didn't do anything to them, but you blamed him is indicitive of the problem I see every day. Bikes are treated like cars. They can be ticketed for running a light, illegal lane changes, etc.

She touched the back of a rider's tire?

Are you kidding me?

Time for some damage to the vehicle.

Are you kidding?
 
News: You were in the wrong. Somebody had to break that to you, because
sound judgment seems to be lost on you.

Uhhh no.

NEWS: Bikes have to stop at red lights too. They are not special.

And, seeing how they are a lot more fragile than cars you'd think riders would be more cautious.

In the story related to us here, 10 idiots on bicycles ran a red light and nearly smacked the side of a car whose driver had floored it to try to get out of their way.

And you think it's the cars fault?

Oh that's precious and sweet....:rolleyes:
 
She should have just done donuts in her van. That would only hit the people immediately around her (the ones assaulting her) and provide a good incentive for others to stay clear. And, most importantly, donuts are fun :evil:
 
Let me make sure I have this straight.

A woman in a car hits a bicyclist. Out of 3000 of them, a handful engage in aggressive vandalism and one actually becomes violent. In response, some people here advocate deadly force against all 3000 of them?

Listen, I realize aggressive words feel gratifying, but do we seriously have no sense of proportionality?

If someone breaks into my house and threatens me with a gun, do I go kill the offenders family after taking care of him?
 
Durruti said:
A woman in a car hits a bicyclist.

Of course we know that this portion of the riders' story is BS. Are we really expected to believe that she hit a bicyclist with her car without causing him to fall or any damage to him or his bike?

Durruti said:
If someone breaks into my house and threatens me with a gun, do I go kill the offenders family after taking care of him?

If a group of people surround themselves with "innocents" and attack you and your family, do you not defend yourself for fear of harming the "innocent" people who are acting as shields for your attackers?
 
Out of 3000 of them, a handful engage in aggressive vandalism and one actually becomes violent. In response, some people here advocate deadly force against all 3000 of them?

No, but according to the drivers acount, she tried to drive off slowly, but cyclist stood in front of her, blocking her way. I am not saying that speeding through the crowd of people is the best idea, but if I was in that car, all those people pounding on it and yelling would make me very nervous and when the window broke my first instinct would be to slam on the gas (regardless of who or what was in front of me).

If I was sitting on the jury of driver's manslaughter trial for people she ran over, I would find her not guilty and hold the beligerant cyclist responsible.


P.S. I don't know what kind of bicycle laws there are in CA, but the Law of Gross Tonnage is universal: if something is bigger and heavier than you, it has the "Right Of Way".;)
 
A woman in a car hits a bicyclist.
A woman is alleged to have tapped a cyclist's tire with her vehicle.
Out of 3000 of them, a handful engage in aggressive vandalism and one actually becomes violent.
Aggressive vandalism of a vehicle with occupants resulting in $5,300 worth of damage, including running into the vehicle (hit and run), is, by definition, violence.
 
Hahaha...for some reason I was thinking we were talking about motorcycles. If I found myself surrounded by bicyclers who were beating on my truck and threatening my family, I think the brush guard on the front of my Nissan Titan would be put to good use. Motorcycles might present a problem, but I've got plenty of ground clearance for a bicycle. I don't care if it's a Toys for Tots rally, if you start damaging my vehicle and threatening my family, you better have a good egress route planned, because you are going to very large piece of steel coming in your direction at a very rapid rate of speed.
 
Huh. I didn't realize violence was defined by a dollar amount. Or that we suddenly believe that journalists don't use language ("allegedly tapped") to steer our thoughts on an event.

P.S. I don't know what kind of bicycle laws there are in CA, but the Law of Gross Tonnage is universal: if something is bigger and heavier than you, it has the "Right Of Way".

You do realize that the phrase "might makes right" is typically used in a derisive manner, don't you?

I think I may respectfully bow out of this thread. Some people are beyond moral reasoning.
 
Durruti, There is a difference between legally right and physically right. I learnd the law of gross tonnage from some Navy guys; when an aircraft carrier is bearing down on you, you get your PT boat OUT OF THE WAY.

A pedestrian might legally have the right of way, but that doesn't mean much when they step out in front of a speeding semi-truck. If you are a pedestrian who steps out in front of traffic, expecting cars to stop, or a bicyclist who blows through red lights and stop signs, don't expect me to be very sympathetic when you get hit by a car.

The car may be legaly in the wrong, and I am sure that will be a comfort to the idiot spending the rest of his/her life in a wheel chair.

Edit: also, in what world is it OK to attack people in their cars for stumbling upon their little bike-anarchy-break-the-law-fest?
 
Durruti, I'm not saying that "might makes right" is a moral philosophy, but it is a fairly logical one. Next time you are at a four way stop and a dump truck obviously comes to a stop after you do and starts moving forward before you do, go ahead and turn in front of him. You have every legal right to do so. Afterall, you were there first. I don't mean to pick on you, so please take my comments with good humor. Just realize that as much as the law may be on your side, common sense and defensive driving often rule the road.:D I have no problem with cyclists as long as they follow the same traffic laws as every other vehicle on the road. You have to agree that it was rather ridiculous on the part of the cyclists to pick a fight with a minivan.:D
 
From what I understand, the car stopped after hitting (or tapping, or whatever) the bicycle. Would I step in front of a stopped car? Yeah, I do it all the time. So does everyone else.

I hope I'm never in a crowd near some of you. If someone else does something wrong, I could get killed.

Alright. Now, I'm bowing out. Really :p
 
Durruti, read again. When she stopped the cyclists started beating on her car. At that point, I would have found a way out of the situation. If that means driving over the attackers, then so be it.

Wayne, I don't think anyone is really joking about using force in this situation. I think that the actions of the cyclists warrant a use of force. Would you sit in your car and be assaulted? Once they broke the window, they removed the protective barrier between the driver's family and the threat outside. It is time to didi mou, and if some one stands there and denies my attempts to escape a violent situation then it truly sucks to be in their shoes.
 
And having your car beat on does not alone justify the use of deadly force.

Break out the back window of my car with my child inside and see what happens. I think you might very well have grounds for defending against this attempted carjacking yes?

Under the "Castle Doctrine" many states are adopting, this very well could be justification for the use of deadly force.

Hippies on bicycles have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us.

A snippet of the Penal Code recently changed here in Texas (goes into effect Sep 1)

(1) unlawfully entered, or was attempting to enter
unlawfully, the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;

Breaking out the window of my auto, I would think it reasonable to assume you intended to enter unlawfully.

(2) unlawfully removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment of the actor; or

Break out the window closest to my child and I would think it reasonable to assume you intended to unlawfully remove my child.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining
whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed
that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not
consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Couldn't retreat if I wanted to in this scenario, more justification even though not needed.


However in Texas I have one trump card here that most states don't, threat of deadly force in Texas is not the same as deadly force.

§ 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of
force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.

In this scenario, I am drawing and displaying my weapon at the VERY least. Whether I fire depends very much on how quickly the nice hippies pedal away. I think you'd be on VERY solid ground if such an unfortunate incident were to take place in Texas.



Still see any joking here Wayne? This is quite serious.

If the bicyclists feel they have been wronged, surely one of the 100+ has a cell phone with access to 911 yes?
 
TR, I could not have said it better myself, very intelligent, well written response. I think it is sad that so many responsible, law abiding Americans feel as though they have to sit back and take whatever violence is thrown at them because they are scared of the judiciary system. It makes me sick when people take up for the thugs who are carrying out such acts. I'm not saying we should just start mowing people down because they piss us off in traffic, but physically assaulting someone's vehicle and therefore putting the lives of their children at risk is grounds for a use of force. I think that TR and I are lucky to live in states that still allow an individual the right to defend themselves and their property.
 
What in the Sam Hill does Texas law have to do with California?

Breaking out the window of my auto, I would think it reasonable to assume you intended to enter unlawfully.

I can't agree. In this situation, I need to see a hand reach in, someone raise a bicycle to throw it... something other than the broken window to show that harm is imminent before deadly force is authorized.

Is this the same board that told me that no shot should be taken at a bad-guy who was pointing a pistol at a clerk? What a confusing, confounding place, where a man aiming a pistol at an innocent should be spared, and a man breaking a window with a bicycle should be shot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top