Someone sent me this link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...video-shows-man-punching-driver-car.html

Loads ok from Mail website ---- but I am surprised there has not been more comment on here

Snod

quote "but I am surprised there has not been more comment on here". Footy was on..

much the same sentiments as the mail comments. Presume police not done anything because the car driver didnt want to take it further...if indeed they even contacted them.

I can't see the driver reporting it, even though the pedestrian lights were on green, that does not give a car automatic right of way over a pedestrian.

Of course the pedestrian was being an idiot but there was plenty of time for the car to avoid coming so close to the pedestrian.

Unless the car driver didn't have time to react (eg pedestrian jumped out in front) he will be found guilty if he hits a pedestrian and probably if he near-misses. This pedestrian had already walked slowly across over half the road and in a very visible position, the car driver should have given him space.

The driver's car window being down in December is also suspicious, maybe he lowered it to shout abuse or maybe to reduce the fumes in the car.

"We pay cash for videos!"

Almost certainly faked for the money and not worth commenting on.

Not sure that's fake. Just standard Liscard clientele.

Would have to be pretty stupid to set that up considering the nature of the driving.

I'd almost certainly have tried my best to run him over by accident.

Why? Just because you are in a metal can does not give you any right to malice or any extra rights over the road. The pedestrian was crossing the road perfectly legally, the car thought he would scare him out the way.

In case law after case law it has been shown that a pedestrian has right of way over motorised vehicles. Pedestrian are allowed to walk on the road, there is no law saying they have to walk on the pavement, the only time they are not permitted to walk on a road is when told not to by a policeman.

What you're saying is that it's not illegal to be a bellend. Quite.

The lad was deliberately being a bellend and I fail to see from that video where the car was trying to 'scare him'.

I'd almost certainly have accidentally knocked said bellend down in my efforts to escape from him as he was punching me through the window.

In this instance the victim was stuck inside their car with no way to defend themselves so they tried to remove themselves from the situation.

I have right of way so I'll stroll across the busy road.

Found a hoody for you...

Perhaps you are getting mixed up with America where pedestrians don't have the absolute right to walk on the roads.

The pedestrian was crossing the road and started across with plenty of time for the car to react, there was a queue immediately ahead so the car wasn't going to get anywhere anyway but the driver was too intent on scaring a pedestrian to notice that probably. The car purposely got as close to the pedestrian as possible, in fact it might have made contact.

The pedestrian had walked 25 feet in a straight line, the car was about 100 feet away from the pedestrian when he stepped onto the road

I'd be annoyed if a car got that close to me, wouldn't you?

What I am saying is that both are at fault for their different actions however the car took an unreasonable, inconsiderate and dangerous action which initiated the problem.

You can see the original video HERE which you can pause without adverts blocking out the view.

There is nothing wrong with knowing your rights is there or are you a believer in a lawless society?

Any sensible person would not cross the road when a car was coming... it's common sense. Just because it's legal, why would you?

Because you want to get to the other side.

There is absolutely no need threaten to assassinate a pedestrian because you think they are invading "YOUR" road.

The driver would probably have not taken that action if it had been another car.

A car and driver is licenced to be allowed on the road and as such are a secondary users and have numerous regulations how they are allowed to drive on that road, including being considerate to other users.

A pedestrian has absolute right to be on the road and is a primary user with minimal regulations eg they don't have to follow the line of the road or be on a specific side of the road.

The direction pedestrians are travelling in is their choice and motor vehicles have to respect that just as they wouldn't rear-end a car in front.

The real question is why did the driver choose to threaten the pedestrian with his vehicle?

As there have been a lot of misconceptions about the priority of road users, the Highway Code is about to be updated to include a hierarchy list which is to be as follows

1. Pedestrians
2. Cyclists
3. Horse riders
4. Motorcyclists
5. Cars/taxis
6. Vans/minibuses
7. Large passenger vehicles/heavy goods vehicles

By default it will be assumed that lower priority road users will be at fault when in collision with a higher priority road user.

Note that this is a clarification, the laws have not changed as this has always been the case whether the Council, Police or CPS follow it or not.