On 09/09/2014 17:29, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 08/09/2014 20:19, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 08/09/2014 15:57, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote:
TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message

"Alamo Heights Police say the bicyclist apparently became upset that
a
white 4-door vehicle was parked in a bicycle lane and broke the
vehicle's windshield".

Just like that, eh?

Well, it might be useful to know whether he actually broke the
'windshield'

The report says he did.

The report says that the witnesses thought he did.

The police were your "witnesses". They are unlikely to have been doing
anything except quoting what he told them.

Read it again. "A person who witnessed the act..."

...is not the person quoted in the report.

http://news4sanantonio.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/bicyclist-chased-shot-at-after-breaking-car-windshield-15172.shtml

The report says (verbatim):

"The chase started around 7 p.m. Friday on Rittiman Road. Alamo Heights
Police say the bicyclist apparently became upset that a white 4-door
vehicle was parked in a bicycle lane and broke the vehicle's windshield."

Note the statement by the police. They must have had that from the cyclist
who vandalised the car.

There are no clues. Believe what you will that but I will continue on the
basis that the witness was a bystander.

Nothing about witnesses to the criminal damage as the source of the story.
The police must have been given that part of the story by the criminal who
caused the damage to the car.

Since he will be the complainant in the matter being dealt with by the
police, he ought to know.

I see you are unable to suggest how it could be broken.

In matters of criminal damage, I readily defer to those practiced in it.
You seem to know a lot about it.

I only know thar windscreens are extremely robust.

More so today than in the past. I can remember that cars as late as the
1980s had windscreens which would shatter into an almost-opaque network of
thousands of tuiny pieces if struck hard enough. Today, they merely chip
in the same circumstances, and the chip is often repairable.

What kind of antique were you driving in the 1980's? Laminated was common
(certainly on cars made in foreign lands) from the late 60's (if not
earlier).

But that relative invulnerability relates to damage caused accidentally,
typically by stones flung up by the tyres of another vehicle.

With very high relative velocity.

A blunt instrument will definitely cause damage to a windscreen.

With very low relative velocity. You clearly have no concept of kinetic
energy.

Unless a credible
suggestion is put forward then a report of damage caused also cannot be
credible. Damage found could have been pre-existing.

How can damage to a windscreen happen simply by parking the vehicle
against a kerb (or "curb", seeing that it was the USA)?

Eh? Where did that come from? Pre-existing could be 10 minutes or 3 years. A
witness would have no clue of origin.

Whether you want to believe the report or not (and it appears that you
cannot bring yourself to it), the glass didn't break without assistance.

It is very straightforward. When a story says that a person (ie, bicycle
rider) broke something that is inherently very strong, there is a
significant
credibility gap. Just like that story a few weeks ago about a broken mirror.
Or perhaps cyclists really are supermen.



I broke a laminated screen by pressing a stick on mirror too hard.