Bike rage in New Zealand
- Thread starter Brettels
- Start date
- Status
thecannibal
Retro Guru
Rob Atkin":x546vnwr said:
Um, that's exactly what camera guy did! When rockshox guy flat ignored him, he made sure he'd been heard, but soon stopped talking and just waited patiently. There were countless times rockshox guy could've let him past without needing to stop, but he seemed to deliberately block camera guy because he has problems with anger and ego. I find it bizarre that people have a dramatically different take on this. Takes all sorts!
J i m s t e r
Senior Retro Guru
- Feedback
- View
merckx":iz7t7n9b said:i think i need to get myself one of those jerseys
mmmm ebay hunt now
I am starting with the belly... Easier to find
J i m s t e r":iy0gkao1 said:merckx":iy0gkao1 said:i think i need to get myself one of those jerseys
mmmm ebay hunt now
I am starting with the belly... Easier to find
yeah i couldn't find any stripey ones either
i used to have a nema charlie brown shirt bitd that i wore to death
thecannibal":1iaj04mq said:
Subtleties of intonation can be missed in situations like this. Camera dude is out of order then RockShox bloke makes a fool of himself.
When the RockShox bloke gets up in his face and says "I don't need a lecture" I am 100% on his side, after that notsomuch.
If I was the guy behind I would have definitely tried to be nice when he pulled over. "Hey cool bike, what a great trail, how are the kids etc" Telling him he's rude is daftness.
I wonder whose fault it is that the RockShox bloke gets in front again? They both seem to know the trail.
Personally - and there's been several threads with similar topics - videos, with cyclists, and confrontations - the way I see it is guy with the camera - well he's probably doing no wrong, really - but you have to say, he is a bit irritating - but I'd say at least started off with the moral high ground.
Mr Rock Shox seems to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder about moving over - that's evident a lot in life - people who don't want to move over on the road, or in other scenarios. My take on this will seem judgemental - but it mostly (note: not exclusively, just mostly) seems to be men of a certain age that get bloody-minded over it.
The violence - and let's not defend it - it was violence - he marched over to camera guy, TWICE - quite wrong - whether whiny pestering and mithering was going on, or otherwise.
I guess it was always likely to happen - camera guy seems a bit whiny and irritating, Mr Rock Shox an imovable man of a certain age, and camera guy decides to voice his disapproval at the end. Some would say it's wrong to yank the tail of a tiger and use a camera as your only real defence.
The violence - out of order - no defence, no mitigation. The comments were just words, he could have walked away.
The camera guy being whiny, mithering and self-righteous - well part of life - perhaps annoying, but doesn't deserve or justify being met with violence.
We all accept that it's possible, even likely in certain scenarios - doesn't make it right though.
I guess I have two thoughts in conclusion: after the likely witch-hunt (not entirely unjustified), it'll probably be Mr Rock Shox who's most unhappy with the situation - rightly so, perhaps - but camera guy could also think about some introspection; secondly, for all those that have made the keyboard warrior comments about how they'd respond with violence, with similar provocation - and that it's an expected and almost just response - is it also an expected and just response to be indicted, prosecuted and punished for the violence - or would that simply be not cricket?
Mr Rock Shox seems to have a bit of a chip on his shoulder about moving over - that's evident a lot in life - people who don't want to move over on the road, or in other scenarios. My take on this will seem judgemental - but it mostly (note: not exclusively, just mostly) seems to be men of a certain age that get bloody-minded over it.
The violence - and let's not defend it - it was violence - he marched over to camera guy, TWICE - quite wrong - whether whiny pestering and mithering was going on, or otherwise.
I guess it was always likely to happen - camera guy seems a bit whiny and irritating, Mr Rock Shox an imovable man of a certain age, and camera guy decides to voice his disapproval at the end. Some would say it's wrong to yank the tail of a tiger and use a camera as your only real defence.
The violence - out of order - no defence, no mitigation. The comments were just words, he could have walked away.
The camera guy being whiny, mithering and self-righteous - well part of life - perhaps annoying, but doesn't deserve or justify being met with violence.
We all accept that it's possible, even likely in certain scenarios - doesn't make it right though.
I guess I have two thoughts in conclusion: after the likely witch-hunt (not entirely unjustified), it'll probably be Mr Rock Shox who's most unhappy with the situation - rightly so, perhaps - but camera guy could also think about some introspection; secondly, for all those that have made the keyboard warrior comments about how they'd respond with violence, with similar provocation - and that it's an expected and almost just response - is it also an expected and just response to be indicted, prosecuted and punished for the violence - or would that simply be not cricket?
- Feedback
- View
zigzag":3lxy2yva said:
brings back bad memories of the Peaks ride and the 'docking' converstation :shock: :shock:
continuing the bell-end theme though i think they are both pricks, rockshox guy being the more well endowed chap but his willy must be attached to his fore head though as he must have been blinded by balls not to see the camera as lets face it those gopro cameras aren't small!
highlandsflyer
Retro Wizard
- Feedback
- View
"I was just like, if you didn't assault me, what was your finger doing in my mouth."
This is why camera boy needs a lawyer to speak for him.
"Do you want me to just run you off the track instead?"
This would/will work very well for Mr. Fat in court. Whatever happened after that point in the incident is in the context of a threat having been made to harm Mr. Fat.
My take is this. Fat Man gave way, in his own time, only to have Camera Boy run into him, thanks to following too close.
Considering Camera Buy had issued a threat to run Fat Man off the trail shortly beforehand, Fat Man is remarkably calm about this, and when asked what he is doing, (which was freaking obvious), he tells Camera Boy he is letting him go.
That should have been the end of it, and Camera Boy should have gone on his way, and should have said thanks.
However, Camera Boy loops round intentionally to continue filming Fat Man, seemingly with the intention of confronting him, (and presumably hoping to get some nice video to upload to YouTube later to laugh at with his mates).
At the point of this confrontation Mr. Fat, who has been goaded twice by Camera Boy, gives him a piece of his mind and wags his finger in Camera Boy's face.
Camera Boy, in full knowledge of the law he previously ignored when he threatened Mr. Fat, tells Fat Man that his finger wagging is assault, and underlines he has it all on camera.
Mr. Fat, fearing a stitch up, decides to go back and get hold of the camera. A mistake, but one that should be considered in light of blatant provocation.
No assault by Mr. Fat is evident.
Unless the nearby cyclists witnessed it, I would doubt anything comes of this.
The only evidence of any injury is to Mr. Fat, witnessed independently and admitted by Camera Boy as his work, regardless of how he suggests it occurred. This is potentially a case against Camera Boy, but I doubt Mr. Fat is so petty. He lost his cool, and I would assume he regrets it and would rather not hear about it again.
As for the pricks who think the trails are made for them, who reckon they can wind up people they do not know and film it all. Well, hopefully they take holidays in Scotland.
If it were me, as soon as I heard the git threatening to run me off the trail I would have stopped and tackled him on his 'trail etiquette'.
This is why camera boy needs a lawyer to speak for him.
"Do you want me to just run you off the track instead?"
This would/will work very well for Mr. Fat in court. Whatever happened after that point in the incident is in the context of a threat having been made to harm Mr. Fat.
My take is this. Fat Man gave way, in his own time, only to have Camera Boy run into him, thanks to following too close.
Considering Camera Buy had issued a threat to run Fat Man off the trail shortly beforehand, Fat Man is remarkably calm about this, and when asked what he is doing, (which was freaking obvious), he tells Camera Boy he is letting him go.
That should have been the end of it, and Camera Boy should have gone on his way, and should have said thanks.
However, Camera Boy loops round intentionally to continue filming Fat Man, seemingly with the intention of confronting him, (and presumably hoping to get some nice video to upload to YouTube later to laugh at with his mates).
At the point of this confrontation Mr. Fat, who has been goaded twice by Camera Boy, gives him a piece of his mind and wags his finger in Camera Boy's face.
Camera Boy, in full knowledge of the law he previously ignored when he threatened Mr. Fat, tells Fat Man that his finger wagging is assault, and underlines he has it all on camera.
Mr. Fat, fearing a stitch up, decides to go back and get hold of the camera. A mistake, but one that should be considered in light of blatant provocation.
No assault by Mr. Fat is evident.
Unless the nearby cyclists witnessed it, I would doubt anything comes of this.
The only evidence of any injury is to Mr. Fat, witnessed independently and admitted by Camera Boy as his work, regardless of how he suggests it occurred. This is potentially a case against Camera Boy, but I doubt Mr. Fat is so petty. He lost his cool, and I would assume he regrets it and would rather not hear about it again.
As for the pricks who think the trails are made for them, who reckon they can wind up people they do not know and film it all. Well, hopefully they take holidays in Scotland.
If it were me, as soon as I heard the git threatening to run me off the trail I would have stopped and tackled him on his 'trail etiquette'.
We_are_Stevo
Old School Grand Master
- Feedback
- View
It's funny but I'm bigger than most people, and my so called 'arrogance' is born of confidence in my own abilities, but I would be plain embarrassed if I was spoiling someone elses day out because they were clearly better than me at a shared pastime...
...in the same circumstances I would have slowed on one of the many 'side trails' in evidence to allow the guy past, then made an undoubtably vain attempt to keep up with him
As for all the nob-defenders, a very basic rule of law is 'Provocation is no defence...'
...in the same circumstances I would have slowed on one of the many 'side trails' in evidence to allow the guy past, then made an undoubtably vain attempt to keep up with him
As for all the nob-defenders, a very basic rule of law is 'Provocation is no defence...'
thecannibal
Retro Guru
We_are_Stevo":3neqrr6z said:It's funny but I'm bigger than most people, and my so called 'arrogance' is born of confidence in my own abilities, but I would be plain embarrassed if I was spoiling someone elses day out because they were clearly better than me at a shared pastime...
...in the same circumstances I would have slowed on one of the many 'side trails' in evidence to allow the guy past, then made an undoubtably vain attempt to keep up with him
As for all the nob-defenders, a very basic rule of law is 'Provocation is no defence...'
Just imagine how likeable you could be if you didn't add totally irrelevant expressions of physical dominance to the start of your posts! People might even stop calling you arrogant - it could be the start of a beautiful new life.
- Status
Similar threads
For Sale
Kooka Cranks 175mm
