What would you do? Bikers vs SUV

[the_bob_delusion]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/30/us/new-york-bikers-road-rage-video/

The New York City Police Department said a man driving a Range Rover with his wife and 2-year-old daughter inside Sunday struck a motorcyclist on Manhattan's West Side Highway, breaking his leg.

The SUV driver pulled over, and the bikers surrounded his vehicle, hitting it and spiking the tires, police said. The driver pulled away, hitting three more bikers in the process, police said.

Should the driver in the SUV be charged?

What do you think of bikers?

What would you have done if you were the driver in the SUV?

[joz*garage]

yes a SUV is very similar in size and style to a 4 wheel drive just not made to go bush bashing

LOL

umm hawk, they usually come as AWD with higher mount suspension for off road capabilities

so the AWD versions are in fact 4WD

top gear recently did a roadie on a skoda yeti, mmm

[freakiness]

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:
Is an suv the same as a 4wd in Australia?

In that case charge him for the simple act of owning one! 😛 (spoken by a the owner of a Mazda Metro who is apparently invisible to 4wdrivers)

---

yes a SUV is very similar in size and style to a 4 wheel drive just not made to go bush bashing

---

Why not? They're usually 4WD. Sports utility vehicle for on or off road driving  😄

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:
If he isn't charged though, when would the court decide?

---

that's kind of the point.

If someone is injured or has damage done to their property by a third party, then a crime has been committed, even if we think they deserved that to happen to them. and that isn't for the police to decide.

[*elizabeths-mum*]

But my point is that if the person isn't charged, even if a crime is committed, how is a court going to decide I there was a crime?

[the_hawk*]

---

@joz*garage wrote:

yes a SUV is very similar in size and style to a 4 wheel drive just not made to go bush bashing

LOL

umm hawk, they usually come as AWD with higher mount suspension for off road capabilities

so the AWD versions are in fact 4WD

top gear recently did a roadie on a skoda yeti, mmm

---

But not all SUVs are 4 wheel drive, like a ford teritory comes in both 2 wd or 4 wd but both are SUVs

[joz*garage]

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

---

@joz*garage wrote:

yes a SUV is very similar in size and style to a 4 wheel drive just not made to go bush bashing

LOL

umm hawk, they usually come as AWD with higher mount suspension for off road capabilities

so the AWD versions are in fact 4WD

top gear recently did a roadie on a skoda yeti, mmm

---

But not all SUVs are 4 wheel drive, like a ford teritory comes in both 2 wd or 4 wd but both are SUVs

---

true, but most of them have off raod capabilities

[the_hawk*]

and even in 4wd SUVs are known as soft riders, they can go down a dirt road but no one uses them as a serious off road vehicle to go bush bashing  

[joz*garage]

---

@the_hawk* wrote:

and even in 4wd SUVs are known as soft riders, they can go down a dirt road but no one uses them as a serious off road vehicle to go bush bashing  

---

oh i dunno, depends on the model, some crossovers are quite capable of going bush, see some reviews.

DDU bought one, what was it again? a subaru xv. 

but if you want to get real serious with high and low gearing, they reckon landrovers are the best 

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:
But my point is that if the person isn't charged, even if a crime is committed, how is a court going to decide I there was a crime?

---

i think we're going in circles?

Bob asked "should the driver or the SUV be charged" (sic)

I said yes, he should. (should is a normative statement)

I don't believe it is up to the police officer to decide whether a person should be charged or not. If a law is broken, then yes, they should be charged. Then the court should take all relevant factors into consideration and make the relevant decision.

Last time I checked, it is illegal to run someone over with your car. It is illegal to cause harm to another person and it is illegal to cause harm to someone else's property. Even if we think they deserve it.

[freakiness]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:
But my point is that if the person isn't charged, even if a crime is committed, how is a court going to decide I there was a crime?

---

i think we're going in circles?

Bob asked "should the driver or the SUV be charged" (sic)

I said yes, he should. (should is a normative statement)

I don't believe it is up to the police officer to decide whether a person should be charged or not. If a law is broken, then yes, they should be charged. Then the court should take all relevant factors into consideration and make the relevant decision.

Last time I checked, it is illegal to run someone over with your car. It is illegal to cause harm to another person and it is illegal to cause harm to someone else's property. Even if we think they deserve it.

---

They were surrounding and attacking his car with he and his family inside. Their safety was threatened. It's possibly not illegal to escape the situation even if that means driving over the attacking mob.