“I was certain that day that I was going to die”: Cyclist forgives SUV driver who chased him in shocking road rage attack

bikeman01 wrote:

"an alcoholic since her 20s" - how come she has a driving licence?

How would she lose it unless she was caught drink driving? Being an alcoholic isn't an offence; alcoholics are not necessarily, or indeed often, people who are permanently pissed. I've known alcoholics who were absolutely scrupulous about not drink driving because they knew that to be caught would give away to their partners, employers etc the extent of their problem.

hirsute wrote:

You can forgive someone but that does not remove their accountability for their actions nor the wider effects on the community.

Why wouldn't he forgive them? The crime never even happened. He just made the whole thing up. I didn't see a rear-facing camera recording of the incident. I bet you can't find a single still in the video in the article that supports Mr Abdi's side of the story.

[Sarcasm = off]

However there are plenty of frames that show the vehicle chasing the cyclist and audio of her threatening plus other witnesses. 

And why the sarcasm?

Nah, those frames only show the driver following the cyclist and certainly wouldn't hold up in court.

And the audio only shows A driver (not THE driver) threatening someone. The driver could just say "it must have been someone else threatening to kill the cyclist!". Even if it did get pinned on them, the driver could just say "I wasn't threatening to kill THEM, I was only threatening to kill SOMEONE, so it's totally irrelevant".

[Again, sarcasm = off]

(And why the sarcasm? I think you know, but I'm happy to explain. Hirsute suggests on another article, that because a video taken during a hit and run was only front-facing, it doesn't actually show a collision at all, and is in fact totally irrelevant. You yourself AS made a similar argument to the above on that thread. It's as ridiculous here as it was when you made it there.)

You do realise what you see in the news article is sections of the evidence supplied to the Police and the courts? So yes, YOU could state your opinion based on the extracts above, however the courts decided the account of the cyclist matched the account of the WITNESSES and what was SEEN on the FULL videos supplied to them.

As for the other video, all myself, Hirsute and I think Awavey are stating is that there is no impact actually seen on the video posted by the user and shown to the Police. There is barely any movement on the camera to indicate an impact and the defence would have argued that it could easily have been caused by the cyclist looking around. Also as the cyclist pedalled away without even a flat, let alone a damaged wheel, he couldn't even use that as evidence. I don't think any of us have stated we didn't believe the cyclist events, just that it was a shame he didn't get a witness statement from the cyclist who obviously saw it and was gesturing at the driver as well as the video shows nothing to help him. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

all myself, Hirsute and I think Awavey are stating is that there is no impact actually seen on the video

Good for you. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. My opinion is that when a vehicular collision occurs and video evidence is provided, the police should do something about it. My opinion is that the driver in the video (and they WERE in the video, and the video DID show a vehicle being driven dangerously) is dangerous and should be punished accordingly. And my opinion is that your's, Hirsute's, Awavey's and the police's opinion that the statement by the victim and the video evidence provided is insufficient for any further action, is woeful and depressing.

The fact that you agree with the police in that is, in my opinion, a depressing sign that even amongst cyclists (I assume you are cyclists by frequenting this website), we no longer expect a level of effort by the police that protects us on the roads.

I will continue to expect that from our police services, regardless of your opinions on the matter.

It did stand up in court. She was convicted.

Yes I was being sarcastic, sorry. In another thread a video taken during a collision was considered by some posters on here to be insufficient to require any police action.

You are of course correct. But I feel it may also be somewhat easier to forgive personally when the perpetrator has been brought to book, held accountable and actually received a meaningful punishment for their actions.

Mungecrundle wrote:

You are of course correct. But I feel it may also be somewhat easier to forgive personally when the perpetrator has been brought to book, held accountable and actually received a meaningful punishment for their actions.

The two things are not mutually exclusive. Offering personal forgiveness so as not to carry that anger and resentment with you should not require that justice not be served in the eye of the law ... although, as the victim has here, calling for leniency is part of that personal choice.

Also when the offender has pled guilty.

Indeed. I also think that his forgiveness is irrelevant. Punishing the driver would serve as a deterrent, much needed time to re-educate and re-programme, and respite for the general public from a dangerous person.

I hope that the victim and the perpetrator both get the support they need.

Another "both!" We should encourage virtue but we need to punish - or at least call out - vice.

We have to encourage driver virtue - or rather "basic competence" as I'd call it. Because it's unlikely we'll ever be able to catch 'em all.
BUT we're human so that will not happen unless there is negative feedback on poor driving. That's mostly "chance of being caught" times *consequences that will actually discourage bad behaviour*. Including *actually* stopping you driving if your actions were dangerous. Not just "we will ban you another time".

This is a social acceptance thing also. We'd have a much bigger drink driving issue were it not socially frowned on so people discourage / report offenders. Needs both that AND the law!

Exactly. We don't punish people because the victim wishes it in many cases. We do it because that person is a danger to society. Thats great that he forgives her but what happens when she does this again because she has learned nothing from the encounter. 

mctrials23 wrote:

Exactly. We don't punish people because the victim wishes it in many cases. We do it because that person is a danger to society. Thats great that he forgives her but what happens when she does this again because she has learned nothing from the encounter. 

She had already spent thirteen months in prison pre-trial, during which she received mental health treatment, so if that hasn't had an effect I doubt a few more months (assuming Australian parole works much like ours) would make any difference. This does look like a case where the woman has serious mental health issues, which notoriously are not well treated in prison (UK anyway), getting proper treatment for those is far more likely to prevent recidivsm than simple jail time. What would be useful in such cases, in my opinion, would be if an order were made that she was not to get her licence back until a panel of psychiatrists agreed that she had resolved her issues to the extent that she no longer posed a danger to other road users (or no more than whizzing around in a tonne of lethal metal normally poses, anyway).