Hit by a car passenger



On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:43:45 +0000 someone who may be JNugent
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> To excuse this as a light-hearted prank is contemptible, IMHO.

>
>Steady on. A mistake, maybe.


I see nothing in the postings to indicate that it was a mistake. It
sounds entirely deliberate.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
 
In article <[email protected]>, Membrane
[email protected]lid says...

> You are trying to justify your indignation for feeling "attacked" by
> saying that it was a vicious act that only by chance did not result in
> something serious, whereas in fact it was a harmless prank with no
> chance of resulting in something serious.
>

Don't be such a prat. It was an assault that could have resulted in
serious injury or death.
 
On Nov 1, 1:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:

> Last night I was riding home from the station at about 11.30pm (i.e.
> pub chucking out time, although sadly I was only on my way home from
> work!) when I got whacked from behind by what I can only assume was
> someone leaning out of a car window as it passed. I didn't see who or
> what actually hit me, and it was actually a very soft blow - maybe a
> jacket or something swung out of the window, rather than anything
> solid, so perhaps comes into the category of prats trying to be funny
> rather than anything actually malicious.


It was both an assault and dangerous driving, and I think you should
report it. Attacks on cyclists from moving cars appear to be getting
more common, and they are not harmless pranks. It seems to have
happened on Halloween night which suggests to me you were very likely
hit by an egg. Fortunately the throw was mistimed which was why you
felt only a soft blow. The egg will have bounced off you and smashed
harmlessly on the road. If the throw had been better timed the results
would have been both painful and messy. It's highly likely these
cretins had a good supply of ammunition so there may well be other
reports against them from the same evening. You may have a part of the
registration number others are missing.

--
Dave...
 
On Nov 1, 10:34 am, Membrane <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >a very soft blow
> >prats trying to be funny
> >adrenaline burst
> >police

>
> I can understand that you feel violated when something like this happens
> to you, but that is a result of misplaced ego on our part. Try and see
> it for what it really is, not an attack on your person, but a silly
> prank by an immature adolescent that resulted in no harm. Anger isn't
> the fitting response, pity is more appropriate.
>
> --
> Membrane


This is not a silly prank, this is an assault (battery? IMNAL) which
could have had very serious even deadly consequences. I'd report it
to the police. Even if they cannot do anything directly it may
encourage them to keep an eye out for the idiots.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
 
in message <[email protected]>, Membrane
('[email protected]') wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>a very soft blow

>
>>prats trying to be funny

>
>>adrenaline burst

>
>>police

>
> I can understand that you feel violated when something like this happens
> to you, but that is a result of misplaced ego on our part. Try and see
> it for what it really is, not an attack on your person, but a silly
> prank by an immature adolescent that resulted in no harm. Anger isn't
> the fitting response, pity is more appropriate.


It was undoubtedly a 'silly prank', but if idiots go on doing 'silly
pranks' of that sort people will die. Startled cyclists commonly wobble
(particularly if inexperienced), and wobbling when there's a moving motor
vehicle alongside you is not at all safe.

So whether it was a 'silly prank' or not, it's still better that the local
plod chaps on his door and has a quiet word with him. Malice was almost
certainly not intended and I'm not suggesting the guy should be
prosecuted, but a quiet word would do no harm.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; part time troll.
 
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 06:35:12 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Anyway do you think it's worth going to the police or would they not
>be bothered as I wasn't injured in any way?


They won't give a **** (if GMP are anything to go by). They're
consistent, though - they didn't give a **** when my car was stolen
either. Took them two + weeks to come and take a statement.
 
dkahn400 wrote:
> On Nov 1, 1:35 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Last night I was riding home from the station at about 11.30pm (i.e.
>> pub chucking out time, although sadly I was only on my way home from
>> work!) when I got whacked from behind by what I can only assume was
>> someone leaning out of a car window as it passed. I didn't see who or
>> what actually hit me, and it was actually a very soft blow - maybe a
>> jacket or something swung out of the window, rather than anything
>> solid, so perhaps comes into the category of prats trying to be funny
>> rather than anything actually malicious.

>
> It was both an assault and dangerous driving, and I think you should
> report it. Attacks on cyclists from moving cars appear to be getting
> more common, and they are not harmless pranks. It seems to have
> happened on Halloween night which suggests to me you were very likely
> hit by an egg. Fortunately the throw was mistimed which was why you
> felt only a soft blow. The egg will have bounced off you and smashed
> harmlessly on the road. If the throw had been better timed the results
> would have been both painful and messy. It's highly likely these
> cretins had a good supply of ammunition so there may well be other
> reports against them from the same evening. You may have a part of the
> registration number others are missing.


I was on my way to the Wednesday evening CTC ride at about 6:15, passing by
a group of 10-15 or so youngish teenagers when something hit me across the
mouth, not hard enough to cause damage but pretty startling nonetheless.
Subsequent passings of the scene in daylight suggest evidence of a few
broken eggs on the road. I did get onto the police straight away, got an
incident number etc - in fact it was our second call to them within the hour
as Wednesday also saw the unwelcome return of the pavement motorcycling
fraternity, and on one of the evenings in the year when there are loads of
young kids around. This time I managed to get a reg number which is unusual
as mostly they are unlicenced.

Although in the scheme of things an egg in the face doesn't really amount to
a hill of beans, it's just annoying that there's a small number of people
out there who think that it's OK to do this sort of thing. Also I'm not
surprised that it happened on Halloween which gives the idiots another bit
of encouragement which they really don't need.

Anyway, the upside is that during the ride I broke my record for Most Miles
Covered in a Year, it's not a particularly impressive record but I'm pleased
with it.

--

Nigel
 
On Nov 2, 9:05 pm, "Nigel Randell" <nigel_randell@_1.web> wrote:

> Although in the scheme of things an egg in the face doesn't really amount to
> a hill of beans, it's just annoying that there's a small number of people
> out there who think that it's OK to do this sort of thing.


Every now and then someone loses an eye from being hit in the face by
a thrown egg.

> Also I'm not surprised that it happened on Halloween which gives the idiots another
> bit of encouragement which they really don't need.


I was hit by an egg from an overtaking car last Halloween. It was an
incompetent throw and felt exactly as Rob described. If I hadn't
looked back and seen it smashed on the ground I would not have
realised what it was. They got eld up at the next lights and took a
series of increasingly despearte turns in the sidestreets before
finally getting away from me. Unfortunately I did not get close enough
to get their number. Halloween gives these anti-social cowards the
perfect excuse to attack vulnerable people.

--
Dave...
 
Ekul Namsob wrote:
> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Marc Brett wrote:

>
>
>>>Do take it to the police, and treat it as a criminal matter. At best,
>>>it'll take an assailant off the streets and save someone else from a
>>>similar assault, with perhaps more serious consequences. At worst, it's
>>>another point in the police databases.
>>>
>>>To excuse this as a light-hearted prank is contemptible, IMHO.

>>
>>Steady on. A mistake, maybe.


> What should happen to encourage the individual not to make the same
> mistake again?


The "mistake" to which I was referring was to "excuse this as a
light-hearted prank". It strikes me as not light-hearted at all.
 
David Hansen wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:43:45 +0000 someone who may be JNugent
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>>To excuse this as a light-hearted prank is contemptible, IMHO.

>>
>>Steady on. A mistake, maybe.

>
>
> I see nothing in the postings to indicate that it was a mistake. It
> sounds entirely deliberate.


<sigh>

Let me spell it out for DH and anyone else who has made the same mistake:

To excuse [the attack] as a light-hearted prank is a mistake. It is
going too far to describe excusing the attack as "contemptible".
 
Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Membrane
> [email protected]lid says...
>
>
>>You are trying to justify your indignation for feeling "attacked" by
>>saying that it was a vicious act that only by chance did not result in
>>something serious, whereas in fact it was a harmless prank with no
>>chance of resulting in something serious.
>>

>
> Don't be such a prat. It was an assault that could have resulted in
> serious injury or death.


Absolutely. It should be reported.
 
JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob wrote:
> > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Marc Brett wrote:

> >
> >
> >>>Do take it to the police, and treat it as a criminal matter. At best,
> >>>it'll take an assailant off the streets and save someone else from a
> >>>similar assault, with perhaps more serious consequences. At worst, it's
> >>>another point in the police databases.
> >>>
> >>>To excuse this as a light-hearted prank is contemptible, IMHO.
> >>
> >>Steady on. A mistake, maybe.

>
> > What should happen to encourage the individual not to make the same
> > mistake again?

>
> The "mistake" to which I was referring was to "excuse this as a
> light-hearted prank". It strikes me as not light-hearted at all.


Ah. I get your point.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
"Nigel Randell" <nigel_randell@_1.web>typed


> Although in the scheme of things an egg in the face doesn't really
> amount to
> a hill of beans, it's just annoying that there's a small number of people
> out there who think that it's OK to do this sort of thing. Also I'm not
> surprised that it happened on Halloween which gives the idiots another bit
> of encouragement which they really don't need.


I think I read a report in the Journal of Emergency Medicine of a
sight-threatening eye injury due to a thrown egg. Hardly trivial IMO.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
JNugent <[email protected]>typed


> David Hansen wrote:
> > On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:43:45 +0000 someone who may be JNugent
> > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
> >
> >
> >>>To excuse this as a light-hearted prank is contemptible, IMHO.
> >>
> >>Steady on. A mistake, maybe.

> >
> >
> > I see nothing in the postings to indicate that it was a mistake. It
> > sounds entirely deliberate.


> <sigh>


> Let me spell it out for DH and anyone else who has made the same mistake:


> To excuse [the attack] as a light-hearted prank is a mistake. It is
> going too far to describe excusing the attack as "contemptible".


Until an eye, limb, livelihood or life is lost...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]>typed
>>David Hansen wrote:
>>>JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:


[in response to:]
>>>>>To excuse this as a light-hearted prank is contemptible, IMHO.


>>>>Steady on. A mistake, maybe.


>>>I see nothing in the postings to indicate that it was a mistake. It
>>>sounds entirely deliberate.


>><sigh>
>>Let me spell it out for DH and anyone else who has made the same mistake:
>>To excuse [the attack] as a light-hearted prank is a mistake. It is
>>going too far to describe excusing the attack as "contemptible".


> Until an eye, limb, livelihood or life is lost...


No, not even then.

If a victim wants to play the brave soldier and regard such an attack
as trivial, that's disappointing (for the sake of the others you
mention above), but hardly contemptible.
 
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> "Nigel Randell" <nigel_randell@_1.web>typed
>
>
>> Although in the scheme of things an egg in the face doesn't really
>> amount to
>> a hill of beans, it's just annoying that there's a small number of
>> people out there who think that it's OK to do this sort of thing.
>> Also I'm not surprised that it happened on Halloween which gives the
>> idiots another bit of encouragement which they really don't need.

>
> I think I read a report in the Journal of Emergency Medicine of a
> sight-threatening eye injury due to a thrown egg. Hardly trivial IMO.


That's the problem, it's too easy to shrug this sort of thing off if there's
nothing to show for it in terms of injury or damage, but then the next time
it happens some punter is off their bike and under the wheels of a car.

--

Nigel