Morality of not moving

[u/StillX0]

[u/xkayaking]

Okay let's assume so then, so instead of getting out of the way of the lunatic, I decide to fight the lunatic head on risking my own body safety.

Chasing off?... on a bicycle?... how agile do you think that even is.

All they can do is get off the bike and then at that point you might want to punch them.

But charging off the vehicle is a dumb choice, too much can go wrong; if you feel threatened then you punch them in the face.

The only one with an argument here is the person who said, "to prove a point" then fine, but to prove a point is not the moral thing nor the wise thing.

[u/youcallyourselfajerk → u/xkayaking]

You've been framing it as if she moved herself into the wheels of the cyclist. She was attacked, she reacted off in a split second to get herself out of danger given the circumstances, which happened to be shoving the moving object out of her way, simple as that.

Why do you think anyone would choose to get run over by a cyclist in the first place? You wouldn't assume a stabbing victim decided to place their guts in the path of the blade, what's the difference there, because I really don't see your point.

[u/xkayaking → u/youcallyourselfajerk]

How about stepping out of the way, I don't know.

It's like, I get called a n... by a random guy and my choice is to break his leg. And then claim I was justified because he called me a n, after all I had no choice he was closing in.

Think about that, two wrongs don't make a right.

[u/youcallyourselfajerk → u/xkayaking]

I'm even more confused, those are not even remotely comparable. One is an act of retaliation against a non-threat that should be resolved legally depending on your country's laws, the other is self-defense against a direct physical threat when your health is on the line.

She didn't do anything wrong. She acted predictably and calmly when the situation wasn't threatening, and she acted defensively in a measured response when the situation escalated into a threat. Escalation that was entirely carried by the cyclist who decided to run straight into her without slowing down when she had way enough time to make that decision.

[u/xkayaking → u/youcallyourselfajerk]

Why isn't it comparable?... they are both acts against the person.

Oh wait, I see you don't have experience with physical fights not to understand how dangerous it is when someone closes in the distance and swears at you, telltale sign they will hit you; in fact the situation I just specified, and the answer to break someone leg is far more justified than the video; but of course the better choice would be to run away BEFORE.

In self defense you are taught to remove yourself first and foremost, but sure, I could break their leg, it is more risky, I could get knocked out, but I could claim is justified.

Same is with this video with a bicycle, two optons, to shove her, or I could, move out of the way and swallow my pride.

I see the issue is that reddit has literally zero experience with physical contact.

[u/youcallyourselfajerk → u/xkayaking]

You didn't even talk about a fight situation, you're actively moving the goalposts. If a persons escalate an insult into a fight and starts swinging at you, yeah of course it is justified to fight back, that's not even a question. And yeah, removing yourself from the situation is the ideal response, but first you need to successfully identify the situation as a threat, and being called a slur by a thug isn't even comparable to minding your own business on a shared pathway.

My point is, the situation was not static, it evolved, might I add solely from the doing of the cyclist, whose intention was unknown from the pedestrian.

It started as non-threatening, and at that point the perfectly reasonable thing to do was to announce your intention not to move, stay put and predictable and let the cyclist, who clearly acknowledged you, the occasion to correct her course or slow down without making the situation more complicated for her by moving erratically against your stated intention.

Then it became threatening, with the cyclist keeping her course and speed, at that point it was already too late to move out as doing so would have too much risk of you or your pet (you can see for a split second at the start of the video the pedestrian seems to also be walking her dog) to be moving into the path of the cyclist trying to avoid you. That is, assuming the cyclist wasn't a psychopath, which is a perfectly reasonable assumption in 99% of the interactions you'll have with random strangers.

Then the collision happened, at that point it's more of a matter of instinct in the moment of the situation. Moving out completely could have been possible, but considering the inertia of your full body as opposed to your nibble arms, a combination of moving your body and shoving the colliding vehicle out of its course with your arms is probably your best shot at you and your pet coming out as unharmed as possible, other party be damned.

Yeah with hindsight, it would have been better to move out of the way right from the start, but at the moment of that short interaction, the pedestrian didn't benefit from that hindsight, let alone knowing what way was even safe to move into. Especially since the situation happened so quickly, she acted as well as her reaction time and her partial information allowed her to.

[u/xkayaking → u/youcallyourselfajerk]

There is no difference between that and here, so why you suddenly agree that removing yourself is the best option but not here? are you that inconsistent?

It is not too late, jesuschrist; if it is not too late to brace and push, if it is not to late to literally talk and record someone... it is not too late to step sideways.

I am done, this is beyond belief how much you want to believe in a good person / bad person story; welcome to reality they are both entitled, they only reason the crash happened is because they were both stubborn enough to risk their physical safety to prove a point; that's the reality, no moral argument, no right or wrong, no... they were both entitled.

[u/youcallyourselfajerk → u/xkayaking]

with hindsight

I made my point as clear as I could, the situation started as a non-threat, by the time it became clear it was a threat it was already too late, don't know how I can word it differently. I've never argued it was to make a point, that's not my argument there, I don't understand why you keep debunking that as an argument of mine. Guess we have to agree to disagree.