Pedestrian pushes cyclist off bike and into traffic

[Phil Fouracre]

Confirmation bias rearing its ugly head?

[kwackers]

She didn't hit the pedestrian though, she passed him further away than cyclists pass pedestrians in vids of that nirvana that is Holland and he was the one in control of that distance.

What's Holland got to do with anything? Looking at the video and allowing for the wide angle nature of the lens she was less than an arms length away. She obviously thought she was pretty close too.

"my interpretation of the OP is that there was no reason for her not to slow down" As Lollykat has pointed out, there may well have been very good reason for her not to slow down. Can you really not understand that she may have justifiably felt threatened?

Remember that video where the guy in Brasil(?) hit a load of cyclists? Apparently he felt 'threatened' then iirc our very own 'Bob' on these forums ended up on the bonnet of a Porche who felt 'threatened'. The world is full of folk who feel the need to take the law into their own hands because they felt 'threatened'.
I'm sorry but feeling threatened and then using that as an excuse to injure or risk injury to a 3rd party when all the evidence is that you're in no danger at all is complete b*x.

If we're going to allow "feeling threatened" as justification for driving or riding in a way that endangers others then imo as a society we've lost the plot.

I find it hard to believe that all I'm saying is that in the general hierarchy those at the bottom should have the most rights and yet everyone and their dog seems to think they either shouldn't or that those rights can be removed on a whim.
"Sorry constable but he looked like a ruffian so I ran him over"

[Vorpal]

The pedestrian *assaulted* the cyclist.

Just because you don't see anything intimidating about him in the video doesnæt mean it wasn't there.

[kwackers]

Just because you don't see anything intimidating about him in the video doesnæt mean it wasn't there.

Why's that? I see no evidence of it.

Occams razor says that the whole thing happened because he lost his rag after a cyclist passed to close and gave him the finger. There's no need to come up with all sorts of "off camera" excuses for what happened.

[Psamathe]

Just because you don't see anything intimidating about him in the video doesnæt mean it wasn't there.

Why's that? I see no evidence of it.

Occams razor says that the whole thing happened because he lost his rag after a cyclist passed to close and gave him the finger. There's no need to come up with all sorts of "off camera" excuses for what happened.

(My added bold) Having watched the video I did not see any evidence the cyclist "gave him the finger". So, "I see no evidence of it."

Ian

[kwackers]

(My added bold) Having watched the video I did not see any evidence the cyclist "gave him the finger". So, "I see no evidence of it."

Ian

The 'evidence' is in the audio. The pedestrian 'believes' the cyclist gave him the finger and given the way it all played out there's a fair probability she did.
I wouldn't say it's conclusive by any means - but it's a lot more likely than some of the scenario's that have been suggested.

[Vorpal]

Just because you don't see anything intimidating about him in the video doesnæt mean it wasn't there.

Why's that? I see no evidence of it.

Occams razor says that the whole thing happened because he lost his rag after a cyclist passed to close and gave him the finger. There's no need to come up with all sorts of "off camera" excuses for what happened.

Occam's razor says the pedestrian assaulted the cyclist.

However, you were analysing behaviour earlier and suggested that the cyclist had an attitude. I have merely suggested a possible alternative.

Many women fear for their personal safety. It is even more likely that she feared for her safety if she is one of the 44% * of British women who have been the vicitms of violence.

Being intimidated by another person or another situation is not something that one person can necessarily judge for another. Evidence? How do you get evidence about why someone felt intimidated or fearful? Have you ever been in a situation where you hurried away because you felt nervous about someone or something? or felt threatened? Would the threatening nature of the situation have been obvious at the beginning of a 50 second video?

* http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 69143.html

[Psamathe]

(My added bold) Having watched the video I did not see any evidence the cyclist "gave him the finger". So, "I see no evidence of it."

Ian

The 'evidence' is in the audio. The pedestrian 'believes' the cyclist gave him the finger and given the way it all played out there's a fair probability she did.
I wouldn't say it's conclusive by any means - but it's a lot more likely than some of the scenario's that have been suggested.

When it comes to believing the cyclist vs the pedestrian, based on how I saw both behave I would not be putting a lot of weight on what the pedestrian said as he launched into his attack on the cyclist. Just because he said it does not make it true - so I'd put it on a similar footing to Vorpal's suggestion about the cyclist feeling threatened (the verbal "evidence" where she asked him not to push her off).

But everybody will have their own interpretation.

It would be interesting to know what the Police have done. The trouble with a lot of these types of report is that the press is great when it's a "hot story" but progress and outcome can often not get reported.

Ian

[kwackers]

Occam's razor says the pedestrian assaulted the cyclist.

At what point did I say he didn't?
This has never been my point. I'm commenting on the behaviour prior to the assault and more importantly (imo) a generalisation of behaviour on the roads where vehicle operators feel their "rights" escalate with the size and speed of their vehicles.

However, you were analysing behaviour earlier and suggested that the cyclist had an attitude. I have merely suggested a possible alternative.

I'm suggesting the cyclist behaved like most cyclists (and drivers) in that they felt they had right of way over other road users, nothing more, nothing less.

Would the threatening nature of the situation have been obvious at the beginning of a 50 second video?

I'd say so yes. Where's the evidence it wouldn't be? The cyclist is far enough away and we see the pedestrian start to step out. It'd be pretty difficult to get much in the way of 'threat' in before it. Not only that but had the pedestrian been threatening the cyclist they'd have continued to do so whilst stepping into the road - and that pretty obviously doesn't happen.
I'm sorry but the whole threatening thing has been 'introduced' into the discussion as a mechanism for shoring up arguments and nothing more. More importantly it has absolutely nothing to do with my original point (mentioned again above) although if folk want to argue that women should be entitled to run folk over because they feel 'threatened' then I'm happy to argue that a 'feeling' isn't enough to get them off the hook.

[Vorpal]

I take your point about entitlement, and I think it's an important issue, but I'm not convinced that there is any evidence that the cyclist in this case did anything out of a sense of entitlement. Does soemone acting out of a sense of entitled say, 'Please don't knock me over?' How do you explain that? Someone acting out of a sense of entitlement in that kind of situation says, 'watch out!' or 'out of the way!' or merely rings the bell.

I'm also not convinced that the cylist felt threatened, it is merely a possible alternative explanation for why she siad what she said.

Even if she felt threatened, I don't think it would be reasonable for her to have run him over. But she didn't.

[kwackers]

Does soemone acting out of a sense of entitled say, 'Please don't knock me over?' How do you explain that? Someone acting out of a sense of entitlement in that kind of situation says, 'watch out!' or 'out of the way!' or merely rings the bell.

"Watch out" is something you shout out in alarm. Ringing a bell is a warning.

What I get from her comment and its tone is resignation rather than alarm, the resignation of someone who deals with pedestrians stepping out on them all the time (or believing they do). The comment is quite loud and directed at the pedestrian as a warning that he's in danger of knocking her off and that he should desist his forward motion.

[Jimstar79]

Hope the guy goes to prison.

[Freddie]

Many women fear for their personal safety. It is even more likely that she feared for her safety if she is one of the 44% * of British women who have been the vicitms of violence.

What percentage of British men have been victims of violence? At least as much, I would fathom, but they aren't women, so it is not reported on and there is no EU inquiry into it.

What happened to this woman was awful, but we are only hearing about it because she is a woman, if she was a man, the police and the general public wouldn't be able to care less. There would probably not be 10 pages of discourse on this forum about it either. If men and women are taken to be equal now, then violence against either sex by any person should be equally discouraged, but I have little doubt we are hearing about this because the victim was a female. At the very least the problem is being highlighted, where violence against men from either sex is taken as read.

A small word on the term "victim-blaming" that I have seen mentioned up thread. It is a pretty stupid term, because people are rarely pure victims. It seems this woman swore at this man, which in no way condones what he did to her, but she should be expected to use a bit of intelligence and not do things like that, especially to people bigger and stronger than her. Men learn pretty early on not to unduly aggravate people bigger than them, because they may get attacked for it. The attack on this woman was completely unwarranted (even if she did swear at him), but it was because she was a woman that she likely did not anticipate such a reaction (women are protected from violence by men at least as much as they are victims of it from men, the main victims of male violence are other men).

If women are now considered equal to men, then it should be no surprise that the chivalrous nature than used to prevail towards them would melt away. This with the general increase in the quickening to aggression in most people in this country would make me wary, especially so if female, of giving the finger to anyone I didn't want to potentially get into a physical altercation with. If equality for women is considered as treating men and women equally, then unfortunately women are going to have to take (or at the very least expect to encounter) the rough with the smooth.

[AlanJ]

It seems this woman swore at this man

Really? I don't hear her swearing at him. If you mean giving him the finger there is no firm evidence she did, maybe she pointed at him when asking not to be knocked off as his response is "don't you raise your finger at me"

[Flinders]

It's really very simple.
The male was crossing the road without a green light in his favour, and was not on a zebra crossing. That means he is solely responsible for making sure there is no traffic coming, except where that traffic might be itself breaking the law, such as doing 60mph in a 30mph zone round a bend and couldn't be seen or anticipated by the pedestrian.

That's what we teach children. Look both ways (etc.) and only cross when it is safe to go.The cyclist wasn't turning into a side road, where a pedestrian would have had priority, or anything like that. The cyclist was not obliged either legally or morally to give way.

If you believe otherwise, what you are saying is that any pedestrian can walk out in front of any traffic whenever and wherever they like and the traffic has to stop for them whatever the conditions and/or speed limit. Which is barking.