Road Rage

It's such ridiculously minimal punishment - and it would probably be barely more if someone got badly hurt.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/moped-rider-spits-in-female-cyclists-face-during-road-rage-row-a3265806.html

Witnessed this guy ram a moped this evening. Not sure if moped rider will be reporting (he has my details) - but I sure as hell don't want to meet this guy on the road. As you can see from his road positioning he flew through the ASL right behind me.
What can I do? Will the police take any action despite me not being the party 'involved'?

2 Attachments

A pretty serious incident here:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/terror-of-cyclist-after-road-rage-clash-with-bmw-driver-a3306861.html

Fortunately, apart from being traumatised, nobody seems to have been hurt.

Awful. Seems a random act of violence though.

Calling it a road rages make it seemed acceptable, it's not.

I've never heard that use of the term 'road rage' makes it more acceptable. What gives you that impression? I thought the population at large found 'road rage' very objectionable.

Obviously, it's perfectly possible that the out-of-orderness on display here was caused by something quite unrelated to traffic conditions. I just thought this was the most appropriate thread to post it in.

Tangentially - the guy smashing the phone looks like he's got massive arm muscles. Increasingly, many young men are bulking up. Does this whole trend
a) mean people look fucking ridiculous in their tight fitting clothes
b) mean that angry young men now have more confidence to attack people, in the knowledge they're very strong and unlikely to get people able/willing to come back at them?
Might be a bit tenuous, I know...

Did I just say people in tight fitting normal clothes look ridiculous? I did. I'd totally forgotten about my wardrobe full of lycra.

For many it does. The link between decriminalising traffic offences and road rage being treated as a traffic offence rather than a more regular assault is a strong one. Road rage is also often seen as an over the top reaction to a minor mistake or frustration that's also disliked by the majority of the audience rather than an attack on someone entirely innocent. It just gives space for people to fill in blanks similar to how use of accident instead of crash does(tho not as bad as that).

Missed this. I'd never perceived it like that.

As if to prove a point, you really get strange ways in which the term is applied. Here's one that to me doesn't look like 'road rage' in the slightest.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/millionaire-businessman-admits-driveway-road-rage-attack-on-pensioner-66-a3333086.html

The property developer and owner of clockmaker Dent - which built Big Ben’s original chimes - was walking near his home when he stepped out in front of Mr Lyons’ car as he turned into his gated estate at 2pm on May 29.

Jackie Hughes, prosecuting, said Mr Lyons had to brake suddenly to avoid the defendant, who had stepped out into the road. She said: “They both looked at each other for a couple of seconds.

Why is this 'road rage' rather than someone on a hair trigger flying off the handle in a completely random situation?

I suppose in the same way that the term 'accident' became commonplace for crashes / incidents involving cars, since it absolves a lot of the need to imply responsibility to an individual for what's gone on.

If I recall, there's a growing trend to stop being using 'accident' and instead use 'incident' (I think). It makes it sound a lot less like crashing into one another is somehow a given...

Does seem very odd. It is a terribly written article. I had to go back and forth trying to work out who was who in the situation only to finally work out that the one accused of "road rage" was the pedestrian at the time...It's just assault surely.

The way I read it (with the same difficulty you mention) is that the charge is actually for 'assault causing actual bodily harm', and it seems that the journo has turned it into 'road rage', perhaps to make the headline snappier, or perhaps they were keen to say that pedestrians can launch 'road rage' attacks, too. Perhaps it was something said in court, e.g. in pleading guilty the defendant may have said 'it was road rage, really' (which obviously has no bearing on the charge).

Oh well.

Yes, I just hadn't picked that up. My perception of 'road rage' was coloured by remembering the murder (on a motorway somewhere) that I think brought the term into the collective consciousness. As it was such a big and scandalous story at the time, it didn't occur to me that it wasn't representative of what perhaps is the more common perception of 'road rage'.

Hmmm - I can see why that would shape your perception! I suppose the trouble is that it's one of those assumed universals that actually turns out to differ wildly depending on who you talk to and where you are. We're too used to the idea that you might happen to get into a yelling match with someone that you're near - can you imagine if it happened on foot with such regularity?!

In any case, speaking as someone who drives occasionally and rides a bike regularly, you've just got to take a deep breath and try to avoid falling into the trap of thinking of it as permissible I suppose...

This really seems to be about the driver going straight ahead from the left-turn lane at the junction of Great Dover Street and Borough High Street:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/moment-cyclist-smashes-56000-mercedes-with-his-bike-in-road-rage-fury-a3970106.html

Apologies for the old thread res - but didn't know where else to post

Did anyone see this on BBC News this week?

"Swindon cyclist punched in head in overtake altercation"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-wiltshire-58558802

Driver got a caution.. seems pretty crazy considering he grabbed and punched a cyclist from a moving car?

And while punching one cyclist he runs over another cyclist infront of him.

Not according to the BBC. She fell

BBC are being criticised for biased editing of the footage

Are you surprised?

I suppose not!