Cyril Haearn wrote: Danger to life and limb is n o t comparable to cosmetic damage to property IMHO
Alternative facts welcome
But what's being discussed is
potential danger to life and limb which is a very different thing.
When cycling on occasion I've slapped the side of a car that's been passing me in a dangerous manner a,and manoeuvre that's been extremely dangerous to my immediate safety,the driver's reaction is to swerve away from the noise which is loud in side he vehicle(I've tested it) though causes no harm the vehicle,I've also shouted loudly in similar situations.Such actions do create animosity toward the cyclist which the s/he has to be prepared for,and until few years ago I was prepared to defend myself from such encounters.
Such actions by car drivers could be described a
potential,however I'd describe them as immediate threat,which is long way from lawbreaking by some drivers.
I wonder whether rice pudding would be useful in the fight against illegal parking. It looks just like bird <i>[inappropriate word removed]</i>. One could smear it on the windscreens of illegally parked vehicles, the drivers might get the message. No damage at all!
[/quote]
IMO it all depends on circumstance of the offence,such things a rice pudding on someone's w/screen doesn't cause damage but does put a good point across,especially if it's been on a while and dried in a the sun