A bus driver who deliberately knocked a cyclist down

[The Invisible]

Normally i like inky comments, not so sure about this thread though but i bet that inky got in a situation close to this before.

[chrisorg]

I guess it Europe and downtown areas it can be different, but nothing makes me rage harder than Farking cyclists.

If cars are travelling 60 km/h, if you can't keep up with that pace, get on the Farking sidewalk or on the shoulder.

Exactly!

[omier]

My father transports refridgerated food to shops and cyclists piss him off quite often in summer. They jump out of nowhere and do unexpected maneuvers, they don't look around. Those type of cyclists.

[heroo]

No need to explain it, my friend, I can see it perfectly from your standpoint. I truly wish the world was that simple, but alas, it is not. You sympathize with the cyclist because he's the one that ended up with the physical injuries, which, in your head, absolves him of any guilt and erases whatever negative actions he committed that led to this rather unfortunate conclusion. You, however, fail to view it from the other party's point-of-view. It was not, of course, a decision he made in his brightest moment but nonetheless, he was provoked by Mr. Mead. Of course, it is very easy and convenient, in this case, to play the role of an innocent victim when you're in a hospital bed, regardless of your previous actions. After all, such a position does lure people to lend you their sympathy and support without delving deeper into the case.

I don't really care that much for the cyclist allthough I feel sorry for him for being attacked in such a cowardly way. I've had my load of annoying cyclist moments. The thing about this is that the action of the busdriver is in no way in proportion to what happened before and even the provokation. Since when is it okay to nearly murder someone because he annoys you on the way? Like we all have never been annoyed while driving.

The fact that you say that both deserved what they got is for me reason to believe you have poor judgment. Not only are you morally wrong, but also legally.

But anyways, next time we have an arguement and you provoke me, which is only logical after we had an arguement, I will come with a fcking bus and ram you. That way we'll both get what we deserve.

[BuDo]

Most conflicts arise out of provocation. Neither party exercised sound judgement, therefore resulting in one being sent to a hospital, and the other in jail. It's an even trade-off.

In some cases one person is sent to the morgue and the other to prison. But I'm not sure where you'd stand on which person deserves what in such a situation. But after seeing your comments on the matter I wouldn't be surprised if your views remained the same.

[NuclearSilo]

Inky, you'd say differently if the cyclist is your bro, simply because your point of view is weak and simple.

[woutR]

I guess it Europe and downtown areas it can be different, but nothing makes me rage harder than Farking cyclists.

If cars are travelling 60 km/h, if you can't keep up with that pace, get on the Farking sidewalk or on the shoulder.

In the Netherlands we have special bike lanes with our own crossings and curbs so it doesn't bother cars.

[CrimsonNuker]

Stupid cyclist hipster got what he deserves.

Hahaha I love it when cyclists and hipsters are in the same sentence.

[inky]

@heroo: If I deliberately do things to provoke another person, then I shouldn't be surprised if I elicit some form of hostile response. Not everyone in the world is passive. I'm not saying it's entirely justified - I've said that from the beginning - but it's different from what you would call a random act of violence. Let me present you with a radical example that's all over the news today: school shootings. I don't ever see myself condoning such acts but in most cases, the shooters are usually disturbed teenagers who have been tormented by bullies. Their only method of cleansing themselves (or so they believe) is by committing violence against their oppressors. The point is, you have to look at it from the other person's standpoint; that is, to examine what made them do it. Of course, the gravity of the situation in Mr Hall's case is much less severe - reason enough for me to state that they both had it coming to them. If the other person dies, then I'd say it's unfair. Unfortunately for you, the law does not punish you for things that could have happened, but rather for things that you successfully committed. You could be penalized for attempting it but to a much lesser degree than the what-if scenario.

@Silo: As always, read to learn above your post. Same could be said if the driver "is your bro."

@Budo: That's an entirely different situation. But as I mentioned, the law does not punish you for things that did not occur - no matter how close you came to it. In this case, the cyclist's poor assessment and behavior led the driver to come to a rash and violent decision - which sent one to jail and the other to the hospital (not the morgue).

[Tasdik]

[BuDo]

@heroo: If I deliberately do things to provoke another person, then I shouldn't be surprised if I elicit some form of hostile response. Not everyone in the world is passive. I'm not saying it's entirely justified - I've said that from the beginning - but it's different from what you would call a random act of violence. Let me present you with a radical example that's all over the news today: school shootings. I don't ever see myself condoning such acts but in most cases, the shooters are usually disturbed teenagers who have been tormented by bullies. Their only method of cleansing themselves (or so they believe) is by committing violence against their oppressors. The point is, you have to look at it from the other person's standpoint; that is, to examine what made them do it. Of course, the gravity of the situation in Mr Hall's case is much less severe - reason enough for me to state that they both had it coming to them. If the other person dies, then I'd say it's unfair. Unfortunately for you, the law does not punish you for things that could have happened, but rather for things that you successfully committed. You could be penalized for attempting it but to a much lesser degree than the what-if scenario.

@Silo: As always, read to learn above your post. Same could be said if the driver "is your bro."

@Budo: That's an entirely different situation. But as I mentioned, the law does not punish you for things that did not occur - no matter how close you came to it. In this case, the cyclist's poor assessment and behavior led the driver to come to a rash and violent decision - which sent one to jail and the other to the hospital (not the morgue).

I understand that we shouldn't be surprised with the outcome but that's not the point. The point is most of us wont accept violent behavior however logical, understandable, expected or even warranted it may seem.....simply because its violent. The driver's reaction might be viewed as emotionally valid but not morally accepted.

[inky]

I understand that we shouldn't be surprised with the outcome but that's not the point. The point is most of us wont accept violent behavior however logical, understandable, expected or even warranted it may seem.....simply because its violent. The driver's reaction might be viewed as emotionally valid but not morally accepted.

Then we're on the same page. We both acknowledge that this is all about perception and the mentality that there is truth in numbers (hint: there isn't). Most people perceive something as "evil" because of what they choose to infer from the situation - not what is actually there. Our taboo on violence is manufactured, not innate. It is through consequences that we learn that although it seems to be the easiest way to readily settle matters, it carries potential risks and possibly fatal consequences. It is a by-product of social evolution to steer away from violence yet we still find ways to justify infliction of harm and even murder; it's simply a question of how far can we stretch it. And that ultimately returns to the point of inference and perception. What makes you think your perception of this situation is more correct than mine? (It's a trick question)

[heroo]

I'm not looking from anyone's view, I just look at it objectively.

Cyclist and busdriver have an arguement.
Cyclist provokes busdriver by blocking his way, he could have only done this for a maximum amount of time.
Busdriver rams clycist with disproportional force and could have possibly killed the cyclist.

The worstcase scenario for the dusdriver would have been to wait a couple of minutes until the cyclist decides to get out of the way or because their ways separate.
The worstcase scenario for the cyclist could have been a severe injury, a handicapped life or even death.

Also I don't understand why bring in schoolshootings, because those are the result of years and years of emotional neglection. The shooters have often been picked on for years and have had all this time to come to such actions. This however is just a random arguement, one moment. It is totally different and does not excuse the offender in any way.

This busdriver has obviously some emotional problems that he has to work on. You're clearly not healthy if you nearly kill someone because you had an arguement with him and he decides to block your way.

[NuclearSilo]

@Silo: As always, read to learn above your post. Same could be said if the driver "is your bro."

If the driver is my bro, I'd tell him to deal things rightly and do not use violence to solve problem.

[Strwarrior]

@Silo: As always, read to learn above your post. Same could be said if the driver "is your bro."

If the driver is my bro, I'd tell him to deal things rightly and do not use violence to solve problem.

I would tell him to stop the bus and go **** that cyclist. ( thats if he was blocking the way on purpose)

[inky]

@heroo: To look at it objectively is to view it in its entirety, that includes the emotional aspect of the situation, apart from your own. When people "see red," they don't necessarily become the most logical creatures. And as I've pointed out before, not everyone takes these things lying down. Would it have benefited the driver more if he simply waited it out? Sure. But the chances of that happening right after a heated argument, while he's being provoked, is evidently unlikely. Both parties made some pretty illogical decisions due to their natural impulse to express anger. The norm would simply be both guys swearing each other for a moment while moving forward, and the situation is over. But that wasn't what happened - the cyclist stopped, propped his bike in front of the bus, argued with the driver (while inconsiderately wasting the passengers' time), and then proceeding to block his path - not exactly his brightest decision. What did he expect was going to happen?

@Silo: Yeah. We all know how efficient diplomacy is, which is why we never have wars. *pats head*

[omier]

@Silo: As always, read to learn above your post. Same could be said if the driver "is your bro."

If the driver is my bro, I'd tell him to deal things rightly and do not use violence to solve problem.

I would tell him to stop the bus and go **** that cyclist. ( thats if he was blocking the way on purpose)

Yea, just get out of the bus with a spade like GTA.

[BuDo]

I understand that we shouldn't be surprised with the outcome but that's not the point. The point is most of us wont accept violent behavior however logical, understandable, expected or even warranted it may seem.....simply because its violent. The driver's reaction might be viewed as emotionally valid but not morally accepted.

Then we're on the same page. We both acknowledge that this is all about perception and the mentality that there is truth in numbers (hint: there isn't). Most people perceive something as "evil" because of what they choose to infer from the situation - not what is actually there. Our taboo on violence is manufactured, not innate. It is through consequences that we learn that although it seems to be the easiest way to readily settle matters, it carries potential risks and possibly fatal consequences. It is a by-product of social evolution to steer away from violence yet we still find ways to justify infliction of harm and even murder; it's simply a question of how far can we stretch it. And that ultimately returns to the point of inference and perception. What makes you think your perception of this situation is more correct than mine? (It's a trick question)

You're right when you say its a matter of perception. If you want to really get objective neither you nor I are verifiably right or wrong given that our interpretation of things aren't really "innate". So where does that leaves us? Nowhere other than showing that we both have a difference in tolerance for violence possibly brought on by what our past experiences have engraved on our psyche.

[Rosato]

Some people are just farked up.

[Fury]

Well done inky, successfully trolled

[*BlackFox]

But that wasn't what happened - the cyclist stopped, propped his bike in front of the bus, argued with the driver (while inconsiderately wasting the passengers' time), and then proceeding to block his path - not exactly his brightest decision. What did he expect was going to happen?

I'd guess that the cyclist was reacting to "previous dangerous driving by the bus". Don't ya think so?

[inky]

It doesn't necessarily have to be based on a previous personal experience. You just have to keep in mind that some people have a tendency to inflict physical harm under pressure. An enraged bus driver who's currently being provoked definitely qualifies to get on that list. If you look at the video, he continued to try blocking the driver's path even when the bus tried to go ahead of him.

[heroo]

you're so wrong on this matter. even the arguements you present are like WTF I'm starting to think you're trolling us.

[inky]

Budo got my point but it obviously went over your head. You're not looking at the situation deep enough. Shallow impressions and emotional bias is where you're at right now. You're barely skimming through the surface here.

[NuclearSilo]

You just have to keep in mind that some people have a tendency to inflict physical harm under pressure.

Yes, and I call these people bad-tempered who can't control the anger, can't think about the consequences like an animal who act out of anger.

[chrisorg]

If they want to use their prehistoric means of transportation, they should do it on the sidewalk

[inky]

You just have to keep in mind that some people have a tendency to inflict physical harm under pressure.

Yes, and I call these people bad-tempered who can't control the anger, can't think about the consequences like an animal who act out of anger.

@Silo: But then you acknowledge the validity of this human response. Also, since you mentioned consequences, I'd like to ask what if there were none? We are socially engineered not to tolerate violence, at least in mind, but it goes against our very instinct that we have to suppress (keyword) our reaction by reminding ourselves of the consequences. However, there is a breaking point for most, if not all, people when it comes to this. And as pointed out previously, it's just a simple matter of tolerance. Besides, it's impossible for you say that you would've settled things differently if you were in his shoes - because you cannot. Right now your socially-engineered intolerance for violence, without considering every viewpoint thoroughly, is similar to the animal instinct or tendency that you speak of.

[heroo]

Budo got my point but it obviously went over your head. You're not looking at the situation deep enough. Shallow impressions and emotional bias is where you're at right now. You're barely skimming through the surface here.

once again you're wrong. but no need to discuss it any further, I know enough.

[NuclearSilo]

@Silo: But then you acknowledge the validity of this human response. Also, since you mentioned consequences, I'd like to ask what if there were none? We are socially engineered not to tolerate violence, at least in mind, but it goes against our very instinct that we have to suppress (keyword) our reaction by reminding ourselves of the consequences. However, there is a breaking point for most, if not all, people when it comes to this. And as pointed out previously, it's just a simple matter of tolerance. Besides, it's impossible for you say that you would've settled things differently if you were in his shoes - because you cannot. Right now your socially-engineered intolerance for violence, without considering every viewpoint thoroughly, is similar to the animal instinct or tendency that you speak of.

There's always a consequence, unless you think you are living in forest and could get away after injuring someone. Yes I'm not in his shoes, but I know I would react differently. Unless his wife or his son got killed, there's not enough reason to try to kill someone out of anger. See the way he acted, I dare to say he got a mental problem.

[inky]

@heroo: I'm sure you do.

@Silo: I'm sure you would.