London truck driver swerves at cyclist who squirted water at him

CXR94Di2 wrote:

The driver performs the swerve after the cyclists passed him, so I doubt it was a flinch reaction, more a red mist revenge action. This is not taking any less blame from the idiot cyclist for continuing the original argument. Both should be charged, the driver will have a more serious charge but only just. Imagine if the cyclist has temporarily blinded The driver and he hit an innocent 3rd party. Bad as each other.

I think Dan was trying to make the same sort of point (if this was referring to that) and I agree - not knowing what the consequence of squirting someone in charge of a large, moving vehicle in the eyes with something should really make you stop and reconsider. Neither parties come out of this looking particularly good in my mind.

vonhelmet wrote:

Where's the murder attempt? For all anyone can say the driver swerved as a result of having something sprayed in his face. I know I'd be pretty surprised if that happened to me, and couldn't be held to account for any flinching that might occur, and guess what... No jury in the land would convict.

People flinch away from the source.

Even lawyers don't know how cases will play out until after all evidence has been gathered, but you, you know right. Cos internet and keyboard = expert.

There is plenty enough case law on vehicles being used as weapons, including for murder. 

Nothing far fetched about a guy losing control for a moment and trying to kill someone. Be it with a knife or car.

unconstituted wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Where's the murder attempt? For all anyone can say the driver swerved as a result of having something sprayed in his face. I know I'd be pretty surprised if that happened to me, and couldn't be held to account for any flinching that might occur, and guess what... No jury in the land would convict.

 

People flinch away from the source.

 

Even lawyers don't know how cases will play out until after all evidence has been gathered, but you, you know right. Cos internet and keyboard = expert.

 

There is plenty enough case law on vehicles being used as weapons, including for murder. 

 

Nothing far fetched about a guy losing control for a moment and trying to kill someone. Be it with a knife or car.

Attempted murder is one of the most difficult cases to prove so is rarely charged. And as to odds, well, odds aren't really relevant because of the burden and standard of proof. What might appear to be a slam dunk evidentially here, because of the presence of video, may not be so. On the one hand there's an objective viewing of the video, on the other hand all of the circumstances of the case will be taken into account including any defence put forward. We'll have to wait to see what any charge might be. I'm not awfully confident here and would like to be pleasantly surprised.

bendertherobot wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Where's the murder attempt? For all anyone can say the driver swerved as a result of having something sprayed in his face. I know I'd be pretty surprised if that happened to me, and couldn't be held to account for any flinching that might occur, and guess what... No jury in the land would convict.

 

People flinch away from the source.

 

Even lawyers don't know how cases will play out until after all evidence has been gathered, but you, you know right. Cos internet and keyboard = expert.

 

There is plenty enough case law on vehicles being used as weapons, including for murder. 

 

Nothing far fetched about a guy losing control for a moment and trying to kill someone. Be it with a knife or car.

Attempted murder is one of the most difficult cases to prove so is rarely charged. And as to odds, well, odds aren't really relevant because of the burden and standard of proof. What might appear to be a slam dunk evidentially here, because of the presence of video, may not be so. On the one hand there's an objective viewing of the video, on the other hand all of the circumstances of the case will be taken into account including any defence put forward. We'll have to wait to see what any charge might be. I'm not awfully confident here and would like to be pleasantly surprised.

There's no chance of this being put as an attempted murder because of existing legislation. You wouldn't even get to burdens of proof as there wouldn't be the elements necessary to charge him with it in the first place.

Calls of attempted murder etc aren't literal, they're shorthand for, this is what I think this should be, not this is what it is under existing laws. 

When I spoke of odds, that was for my own judgement, nothing else. Thought that was clear. 

I do think this should be charged as attempted murder. And I would love to see legislation that enabled it to happen. I don't base my judgement, certainly not ethics or morality on existing laws. 

That's not to say it couldn't happen, but there would have to be a piece of evidence, perhaps from a statement or witness that changed how it's viewed. People say stupid things on social media, "nearly killed a cyclist today, shame, tried my best". Stupid stuff like that could indict him.

unconstituted wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Where's the murder attempt? For all anyone can say the driver swerved as a result of having something sprayed in his face. I know I'd be pretty surprised if that happened to me, and couldn't be held to account for any flinching that might occur, and guess what... No jury in the land would convict.

 

People flinch away from the source.

 

Even lawyers don't know how cases will play out until after all evidence has been gathered, but you, you know right. Cos internet and keyboard = expert.

 

There is plenty enough case law on vehicles being used as weapons, including for murder. 

 

Nothing far fetched about a guy losing control for a moment and trying to kill someone. Be it with a knife or car.

Your body might flinch away from the source, but who's to say what your hands might do and what the vehicle you're controlling might do?

For the record I am, to an extent, playing devil's advocate here. IF the driver intentionally swerved then that's obviously dangerous driving, BUT given the provocation you would never get that charge to stick. Never never never. To which end, the cyclist was an idiot to retaliate like that, because at best he achieves nothing and at worst he ends up dead and the truck driver walks.

vonhelmet wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Where's the murder attempt? For all anyone can say the driver swerved as a result of having something sprayed in his face. I know I'd be pretty surprised if that happened to me, and couldn't be held to account for any flinching that might occur, and guess what... No jury in the land would convict.

 

People flinch away from the source.

 

Even lawyers don't know how cases will play out until after all evidence has been gathered, but you, you know right. Cos internet and keyboard = expert.

 

There is plenty enough case law on vehicles being used as weapons, including for murder. 

 

Nothing far fetched about a guy losing control for a moment and trying to kill someone. Be it with a knife or car.

Your body might flinch away from the source, but who's to say what your hands might do and what the vehicle you're controlling might do?

For the record I am, to an extent, playing devil's advocate here. IF the driver intentionally swerved then that's obviously dangerous driving, BUT given the provocation you would never get that charge to stick. Never never never. To which end, the cyclist was an idiot to retaliate like that, because at best he achieves nothing and at worst he ends up dead and the truck driver walks.

Oh so the reaction is debatable. That's good to know.

Provocation as a defender for attempted murder. Wasn't provocation repealed around 2009, and was it even relevant to attempted murder anyway. 

Feel free to to fill me in on the 2009 Act.

Really am not up for spending hours going through it any case law over the weekend when you seem to know already and can give it to me short form.

unconstituted wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Where's the murder attempt? For all anyone can say the driver swerved as a result of having something sprayed in his face. I know I'd be pretty surprised if that happened to me, and couldn't be held to account for any flinching that might occur, and guess what... No jury in the land would convict.

 

People flinch away from the source.

 

Even lawyers don't know how cases will play out until after all evidence has been gathered, but you, you know right. Cos internet and keyboard = expert.

 

There is plenty enough case law on vehicles being used as weapons, including for murder. 

 

Nothing far fetched about a guy losing control for a moment and trying to kill someone. Be it with a knife or car.

Your body might flinch away from the source, but who's to say what your hands might do and what the vehicle you're controlling might do?

For the record I am, to an extent, playing devil's advocate here. IF the driver intentionally swerved then that's obviously dangerous driving, BUT given the provocation you would never get that charge to stick. Never never never. To which end, the cyclist was an idiot to retaliate like that, because at best he achieves nothing and at worst he ends up dead and the truck driver walks.

 

Oh so the reaction is debatable. That's good to know.

 

Provocation as a defender for attempted murder. Wasn't provocation repealed around 2009, and was it even relevant to attempted murder anyway. 

 

Feel free to to fill me in on the 2009 Act.

 

Really am not up for spending hours going through it any case law over the weekend when you seem to know already and can give it to me short form.

 

I really don't care about the specific legalities, because it really doesn't matter. No jury is going to convict a driver for running over a cyclist, or running a cyclist into the path of oncoming traffic, after the cyclist squirted water through their window. Is that right? Who cares, it literally does not matter. At best, the lawyer argues that the driver did it involuntarily, such was their surprise at a turn of events that would surprise even the most competent driver. At worst, the jury sympathises and thinks "Well, if someone did that to me, I'd run them over".

Right or wrong, true or false, legal or illegal, it does not matter. No jury will convict if you have done something as stupid as to squirt water through a car window at the driver. Never happen.

vonhelmet wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

vonhelmet wrote:

Where's the murder attempt? For all anyone can say the driver swerved as a result of having something sprayed in his face. I know I'd be pretty surprised if that happened to me, and couldn't be held to account for any flinching that might occur, and guess what... No jury in the land would convict.

 

People flinch away from the source.

 

Even lawyers don't know how cases will play out until after all evidence has been gathered, but you, you know right. Cos internet and keyboard = expert.

 

There is plenty enough case law on vehicles being used as weapons, including for murder. 

 

Nothing far fetched about a guy losing control for a moment and trying to kill someone. Be it with a knife or car.

Your body might flinch away from the source, but who's to say what your hands might do and what the vehicle you're controlling might do?

For the record I am, to an extent, playing devil's advocate here. IF the driver intentionally swerved then that's obviously dangerous driving, BUT given the provocation you would never get that charge to stick. Never never never. To which end, the cyclist was an idiot to retaliate like that, because at best he achieves nothing and at worst he ends up dead and the truck driver walks.

I'm sure you are right that a jury would excuse the driver, but really ' provocation' - is squirting water at someone, however stupid an act, really enough provocation? If someone did this to me on the street, and in return I clouted him with a hammer, would that be fine as well, or is it only OK if I use  a few tonnes of metal and an engine?

unconstituted wrote:

In case the swivel-eyed brigade missed the memo.

We live in the UK. A modern civilisation. Squirting water does not warrant a murder attempt.

 

Indeed. Luckily the modern civilistaion also has a pretty robust mechanism to determine what is a"murder attempt", or more pertitently to prove it beyond resonable doubt.

No-one knows the context of the dissagreement. All we know is that cyclist had an argument with the driver, then squirted water into the open window, then the van swerved into the center of the road. 

No-one, apart from the cyclist and driver, know the context or the intention of the actions depicted. As pointed out already, we do not know if there was intention by the driver, we can suspect but that is irrelevant. As such; a possibility is that the cyclist was trying to get a Darwin award with the driver completely innocent and also vice versa in terms of blame. 

I find it bonkers, that in a

Quote:

modern civilisation

that some will simply pass judgement on the party they most emphasis with, in this case you, a cyclist, backing the cyclist, with little information/proof/facts at hand. It is a primal herd mentality.

Yours truly, 

The Swivel Eyed Brigade

perpetual121 wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

In case the swivel-eyed brigade missed the memo.

We live in the UK. A modern civilisation. Squirting water does not warrant a murder attempt.

 

 

Indeed. Luckily the modern civilistaion also has a pretty robust mechanism to determine what is a"murder attempt", or more pertitently to prove it beyond resonable doubt.

No-one knows the context of the dissagreement. All we know is that cyclist had an argument with the driver, then squirted water into the open window, then the van swerved into the center of the road. 

No-one, apart from the cyclist and driver, know the context or the intention of the actions depicted. As pointed out already, we do not know if there was intention by the driver, we can suspect but that is irrelevant. As such; a possibility is that the cyclist was trying to get a Darwin award with the driver completely innocent and also vice versa in terms of blame. 

I find it bonkers, that in a

Quote:

modern civilisation

that some will simply pass judgement on the party they most emphasis with, in this case you, a cyclist, backing the cyclist, with little information/proof/facts at hand. It is a primal herd mentality.

Yours truly, 

The Swivel Eyed Brigade

If that's all you know from watching that video, then you've a lot of catching up with the rest of civilisation. Rationality depends on making judgement based on odds. There is no such thing as an absolute known, even in a court case. Even DNA evidence does not provide absolute certainty.

So we look at the video and pass judgement on the odds.

Odds aren't in favour of the driver randomly swerving. Odds are in favour of it being a retaliation.

And when people, like myself, who have a law degree and know the definition of murder, use the term loosely, it's not that we actually think this is an attempt by the legal definition, it's a call to arms for the weak driving legislation that isn't in line with other criminal offences.

That's the difference between being on the fence and thinking you're objective and having a few brain cells about and trusting your judgement.

Cupov wrote:

Pair of idiots in my book

Agreed, but one is a murderous idiot.

marcswales wrote:

Cupov wrote:

Pair of idiots in my book

Agreed, but one is a murderous idiot.

Agreed!  That driver should not be allowed on the road, if he gets away with this, he'll do it again some time, and some poor bugger won't be around to tell the tale.

The cyclist should also face some kind of punishment, but I don't know what the police can do to him.

It staggers me that on a cycling forum, there are so many people hostile to other cyclists.

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

It staggers me that on a cycling forum, there are so many people hostile to other cyclists.

Pointing out that the cyclist did something incredibly stupid isn't being hostile, it's acknowledging that we all make mistakes, including cyclists.  Not all drivers are evil, and not all cyclists are saints, and admitting that isn't being hostile to cyclists.

Daveyraveygravey wrote:

marcswales wrote:

Cupov wrote:

Pair of idiots in my book

Agreed, but one is a murderous idiot.

 

Agreed!  That driver should not be allowed on the road, if he gets away with this, he'll do it again some time, and some poor bugger won't be around to tell the tale.

The cyclist should also face some kind of punishment, but I don't know what the police can do to him.

It staggers me that on a cycling forum, there are so many people hostile to other cyclists.

The cyclist in the video is deserving of some hostility to be fair, just not the amount shown to him by the truck driver.

marcswales wrote:

Cupov wrote:

Pair of idiots in my book

Agreed, but one is a murderous idiot.

Where was the murder?

Sorry, but if someone squirts something into your face what do you naturally do? Flinch. You put your hands up. You panic. For all anyone here knows that is what could have happened, and sure as hell that is what the driver will say at court if anything were to come of this. What do you think a jury would look at there? What happened down the road is irrelevant, the cyclist has made his way up to this driver, argued with him, and then squirted him. The road looked reasonably straight, I'd bet he could have seen cars coming into his direction when he decided to pull up on his offside and spray him with his bottle. 

I don't know what happened before this, and I don't know what words were exchanged. What I can quite clearly see, is a cyclist making everyone elses life a bit harder and justifying the poor attitude cyclists receive from other road users, by being overly aggressive. I have near misses in my car, and I have near misses on my bike, and it is RARELY me at fault. But I don't go chasing people down to have a go and then to assault (yes that is assault by law) them and put myself in an incredibly dangerous position doing so. 

To be honest, if I'd have got a job like this as a Police officer, I wouldn't know where I'd start, I'm fairly confident the truck driver did something stupid to get that as a response from the lad on the bike, but does it justify his behaviour putting himself, and other motorists / pedestrians at danger. If driver had flinched he could have swerved the other way, and hit someone walking past completely innocent. If anyone has ever got water right in their eye they know it hurts and blinds you momentarily, you lose all sense of depth perception and all sorts.

Some motorists are muppets, so are some cyclists. Try not to be one, stay safe, and don't engage in conflict. If someone has done something dangerous, and you have the chance to tell them politely, do it, if it escalates just move on. If you need to inform the police then do it. Your life is worth more than telling someone they were wrong and proving it. 

Sswindells wrote:

marcswales wrote:

Cupov wrote:

Pair of idiots in my book

Agreed, but one is a murderous idiot.

 

Where was the murder?

Where did someone say there was a murder?

Sswindells wrote:

Sorry, but if someone squirts something into your face what do you naturally do? Flinch. You put your hands up. You panic. For all anyone here knows that is what could have happened,

Nah, the natural thing is to swerve your truck at the person after the incident and then rely on one of the legal experts that inhabit the constabulary to come up with a cock-a-mamie defence for you.

Sswindells wrote:

 What I can quite clearly see, is a cyclist making everyone elses life a bit harder and justifying the poor attitude cyclists receive from other road users, by being overly aggressive. I have near misses in my car, and I have near misses on my bike, and it is RARELY me at fault. But I don't go chasing people down to have a go and then to assault (yes that is assault by law) them and put myself in an incredibly dangerous position doing so. 

To be honest, if I'd have got a job like this as a Police officer, I wouldn't know where I'd start,

Good thing you're not a police officer.  Oh.  Wait.

Sswindells wrote:

Some motorists are muppets, so are some cyclists. Try not to be one, stay safe, and don't engage in conflict. If someone has done something dangerous, and you have the chance to tell them politely, do it, if it escalates just move on. If you need to inform the police then do it. Your life is worth more than telling someone they were wrong and proving it. 

I agree with the above quote.  I'd like to add to it though:

* Most police, and indeed most cyclists are actually motorists temporarily out of their cars

* Most police are unable and unwilling to do anything about the routine violence against cyclists.  Even in the most egregious clear-cut cases they are pretty much useless and irrelevant to anything approaching justice.  In fact, because of the first point, they are a hindrance to it.... so, if you're going to do something like this expect that the police will be part of your problem.

* Never listen to a police officer tell you what the law is and what is/is not relevant in a particular situation, there are people who have expertise in that after years of study.  A police officer's expertise lies in filling out forms, beating student protestors over the head and arranging emergency medical transport for his fellow  motorists when they're staggering about drunk on the weekend.

Ush wrote:

Sswindells wrote:

marcswales wrote:

Cupov wrote:

Pair of idiots in my book

Agreed, but one is a murderous idiot.

 

Where was the murder?

Where did someone say there was a murder?

 

Sswindells wrote:

Sorry, but if someone squirts something into your face what do you naturally do? Flinch. You put your hands up. You panic. For all anyone here knows that is what could have happened,

Nah, the natural thing is to swerve your truck at the person after the incident and then rely on one of the legal experts that inhabit the constabulary to come up with a cock-a-mamie defence for you.

 

 

Sswindells wrote:

 What I can quite clearly see, is a cyclist making everyone elses life a bit harder and justifying the poor attitude cyclists receive from other road users, by being overly aggressive. I have near misses in my car, and I have near misses on my bike, and it is RARELY me at fault. But I don't go chasing people down to have a go and then to assault (yes that is assault by law) them and put myself in an incredibly dangerous position doing so. 

To be honest, if I'd have got a job like this as a Police officer, I wouldn't know where I'd start,

Good thing you're not a police officer.  Oh.  Wait.

 

Sswindells wrote:

Some motorists are muppets, so are some cyclists. Try not to be one, stay safe, and don't engage in conflict. If someone has done something dangerous, and you have the chance to tell them politely, do it, if it escalates just move on. If you need to inform the police then do it. Your life is worth more than telling someone they were wrong and proving it. 

 

I agree with the above quote.  I'd like to add to it though:

* Most police, and indeed most cyclists are actually motorists temporarily out of their cars

* Most police are unable and unwilling to do anything about the routine violence against cyclists.  Even in the most egregious clear-cut cases they are pretty much useless and irrelevant to anything approaching justice.  In fact, because of the first point, they are a hindrance to it.... so, if you're going to do something like this expect that the police will be part of your problem.

* Never listen to a police officer tell you what the law is and what is/is not relevant in a particular situation, there are people who have expertise in that after years of study.  A police officer's expertise lies in filling out forms, beating student protestors over the head and arranging emergency medical transport for his fellow  motorists when they're staggering about drunk on the weekend.

Ah, I see you've hit the nail on the head then with your expert knowledge of Police officers. Is that all of them or just the odd one that you've seen in the media. 

I try and give a balanced argument each time and offer some insight into each of these when the " all motorists are potential murderers and nobody cares " brigade start. Seemingly being forgetful that cyclists too have caused deaths and serious injuries. Some cyclists also break the law, cycle aggressively and dangerously, and give the rest a bad name ( similar to motorists I hasten to add ).  Maybe not as much but you know, tar with the same brush and all that. 

Concocting defences, no, stating what any reasonable defence would be, yes. Because I didn't see what happened, nor did you. Have someone unexpectedly squirt water in your face and see how you respond, then do it to someone else, and someone else. See if everyone reacts the same. I'd be surprised. 

Did cyclist deserve to nearly die, definitely not, did motorist deserve a face full of water, probably. But only in the sense that some people deserve a face full of water because they're a tool. 

I find it sad that you'd give me a bad rep for my job, yet know nothing about me, my values, or what I've done. That when I've organised events for cyclists nobody bothers with anything more useful than "stop all the drivers from doing things wrong " which is easily countered with "stop all the cyclists from doing things wrong too". There is never anything more constructive. 

There are lots of legal eagles on the keyboard, I'm not one. I am experienced enough to tell you what is the law, and what should be realistic in expectations. 

Attempt murder, not likely, dangerous driving, possibly depending on what actually happened in that drivers mind. 

Im open to constructive discussions, but make me out to be a thug, perhaps this is why cyclists are seen with such hatred. 

Sswindells wrote:

Ush wrote:

Sswindells wrote:

marcswales wrote:

Cupov wrote:

Pair of idiots in my book

Agreed, but one is a murderous idiot.

 

Where was the murder?

Where did someone say there was a murder?

 

Sswindells wrote:

Sorry, but if someone squirts something into your face what do you naturally do? Flinch. You put your hands up. You panic. For all anyone here knows that is what could have happened,

Nah, the natural thing is to swerve your truck at the person after the incident and then rely on one of the legal experts that inhabit the constabulary to come up with a cock-a-mamie defence for you.

 

 

Sswindells wrote:

 What I can quite clearly see, is a cyclist making everyone elses life a bit harder and justifying the poor attitude cyclists receive from other road users, by being overly aggressive. I have near misses in my car, and I have near misses on my bike, and it is RARELY me at fault. But I don't go chasing people down to have a go and then to assault (yes that is assault by law) them and put myself in an incredibly dangerous position doing so. 

To be honest, if I'd have got a job like this as a Police officer, I wouldn't know where I'd start,

Good thing you're not a police officer.  Oh.  Wait.

 

Sswindells wrote:

Some motorists are muppets, so are some cyclists. Try not to be one, stay safe, and don't engage in conflict. If someone has done something dangerous, and you have the chance to tell them politely, do it, if it escalates just move on. If you need to inform the police then do it. Your life is worth more than telling someone they were wrong and proving it. 

 

I agree with the above quote.  I'd like to add to it though:

* Most police, and indeed most cyclists are actually motorists temporarily out of their cars

* Most police are unable and unwilling to do anything about the routine violence against cyclists.  Even in the most egregious clear-cut cases they are pretty much useless and irrelevant to anything approaching justice.  In fact, because of the first point, they are a hindrance to it.... so, if you're going to do something like this expect that the police will be part of your problem.

* Never listen to a police officer tell you what the law is and what is/is not relevant in a particular situation, there are people who have expertise in that after years of study.  A police officer's expertise lies in filling out forms, beating student protestors over the head and arranging emergency medical transport for his fellow  motorists when they're staggering about drunk on the weekend.

 

Ah, I see you've hit the nail on the head then with your expert knowledge of Police officers. Is that all of them or just the odd one that you've seen in the media. 

I try and give a balanced argument each time and offer some insight into each of these when the " all motorists are potential murderers and nobody cares " brigade start. Seemingly being forgetful that cyclists too have caused deaths and serious injuries. Some cyclists also break the law, cycle aggressively and dangerously, and give the rest a bad name ( similar to motorists I hasten to add ).  Maybe not as much but you know, tar with the same brush and all that. 

Concocting defences, no, stating what any reasonable defence would be, yes. Because I didn't see what happened, nor did you. Have someone unexpectedly squirt water in your face and see how you respond, then do it to someone else, and someone else. See if everyone reacts the same. I'd be surprised. 

Did cyclist deserve to nearly die, definitely not, did motorist deserve a face full of water, probably. But only in the sense that some people deserve a face full of water because they're a tool. 

I find it sad that you'd give me a bad rep for my job, yet know nothing about me, my values, or what I've done. That when I've organised events for cyclists nobody bothers with anything more useful than "stop all the drivers from doing things wrong " which is easily countered with "stop all the cyclists from doing things wrong too". There is never anything more constructive. 

There are lots of legal eagles on the keyboard, I'm not one. I am experienced enough to tell you what is the law, and what should be realistic in expectations. 

Attempt murder, not likely, dangerous driving, possibly depending on what actually happened in that drivers mind. 

Im open to constructive discussions, but make me out to be a thug, perhaps this is why cyclists are seen with such hatred. 

just came on to get the longest stacked quote ever ;p

Sswindells wrote:

I try and give a balanced argument each time and offer some insight into each of these when the " all motorists are potential murderers and nobody cares " brigade start. Seemingly being forgetful that cyclists too have caused deaths and serious injuries.

And immediately you're right back, marching in lockstep with the Ludicrous Comparison Brigade.  Not content with that you have to blow your own trumpet and do a silly dance like this: 

Sswindells wrote:

There are lots of legal eagles on the keyboard, I'm not one. I am experienced enough to tell you what is the law, and what should be realistic in expectations. 

Attempt murder, not likely, dangerous driving, possibly depending on what actually happened in that drivers mind. 

Yeah, thanks.  You should give up the day job and take silk.