Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Driver takes revenge on 50 cyclists.

Options
«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    uberwolf
    Registered Users Posts: 7,580 ✭✭✭uberwolf


    eh.

    OMG.


  • Options
    #3
    luckat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,366 ✭✭✭luckat


    Hopefully the costs he has to pay for the injuries he caused will prevent him ever being able to afford to drive again.


  • Options
    #4
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    Explosive_Cornflake wrote: »
    EDIT: Didn't see the date on this. Probably was posted before, If so delete it.
    It was posted over in 'Motors' last month, to somewhat mixed reactions.

    In a similar incident, closer to home, there were fatalities in the highly popular 'MaraCycle' near Newry, some years ago. The driver was either doped, drunk or both.


  • Options
    #5
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    Luckily in Ireland the Rules of the road are different and cyclists are required to cycle in single file if they are inconveniencing or obstructing other traffic as per the current edition of the ROTR so this situation should not occur here if cyclists obey the rules


  • Options
    #6
    Raam
    Registered Users Posts: 14,317 ✭✭✭✭Raam


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    ...so this situation should not occur here if cyclists obey the rules

    It shouldn't happen, period.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    Raam wrote: »
    It shouldn't happen, period.

    I agree, however, if cyclists cycled in single file when inconveniencing other road users, it wouldn't have happened. Obviously the motorist in this case shouldn't have done what is alleged to have happened but EQUALLY he/she would not have been driven to such an extreme if the cyclists had shown a bit of courtesy (in the case of australian law) or just obeyed the ROTR in the case of a cycling event in Ireland.


  • Options
    #8
    Raam
    Registered Users Posts: 14,317 ✭✭✭✭Raam


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    I agree, however, if cyclists cycled in single file when inconveniencing other road users, it wouldn't have happened. Obviously the motorist in this case shouldn't have done what is alleged to have happened but EQUALLY he/she would not have been driven to such an extreme if the cyclists had shown a bit of courtesy (in the case of australian law) or just obeyed the ROTR in the case of a cycling event in Ireland.

    It's not the cyclists fault that he caused an accident.


  • Options
    #9
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    Luckily in Ireland the Rules of the road are different and cyclists are required to cycle in single file if they are inconveniencing or obstructing other traffic as per the current edition of the ROTR so this situation should not occur here if cyclists obey the rules
    The rule stated in the ROTR in this case is an inaccurate interpretation of the underlying regulations.

    Cyclists are permitted to ride two abreast at all times unless overtaking other traffic.


  • Options
    #10
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    The rule stated in the ROTR in this case is an inaccurate interpretation of the underlying regulations.

    Cyclists are permitted to ride two abreast at all times unless overtaking other traffic.

    hold up there cyclopath, take up your interpretation with the Road Safety Authority if you think there is something wrong with the Rules of the Road. As a road user we all all required to obey the Rules of the Road and not some interpretation of it or some a la carte version. The ROTR clearly states that cyclists must travel in single file in heavy traffic or if to do otherwise would inconvenience other road users.
    My point being that if cyclists obey the Irish rules of the road the circumstances whch led to the incident referred to in this thread would not happen! (Occasionally Ireland leads the way in common sense - this being one and plastic bag rules being the other that springs to mind)


  • Options
    #11
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    As a road user we all all required to obey the Rules of the Road
    That is not correct. We are obliged to obey the road traffic regulations, not the contents of the RoTR.

    If you believe that cycling two abreast and getting in your way constitutes an offence, quote the relevant statute and not an interpretation (such as the RoTR).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    Do you condone ignoring the Rules of the Road?


  • Options
    #13
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    Do you condone ignoring the Rules of the Road?
    Everyone should obey the law, don't you agree?


  • Options
    #14
    niceonetom
    Registered Users Posts: 4,833 ✭✭✭niceonetom


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    I agree, however, if cyclists cycled in single file when inconveniencing other road users, it wouldn't have happened. Obviously the motorist in this case shouldn't have done what is alleged to have happened but EQUALLY he/she would not have been driven to such an extreme if the cyclists had shown a bit of courtesy (in the case of australian law) or just obeyed the ROTR in the case of a cycling event in Ireland.

    "driven to such an extreme"? are you kidding? you're one of these "she was asking for it cos she was wearing a short skirt" types aren't you?


  • Options
    #15
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    niceonetom wrote: »
    "driven to such an extreme"? are you kidding? you're one of these "she was asking for it cos she was wearing a short skirt" types aren't you?

    ??? NO - how dare you make such an inference!


  • Options
    #16
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    cyclopath2001 wrote: »
    Everyone should obey the law, don't you agree?

    Yes. The law requires all road users to obey the rules of the road. If you think the rules of the road are wrong then I suggest you take it up with the CEO of the RSA or indeed the Minister for Transport - in the mean time please be sure to cycle in single file in heavy traffic as required.


  • Options
    #17
    niceonetom
    Registered Users Posts: 4,833 ✭✭✭niceonetom


    how very dare i? well, like this really...

    you are essentially placing a portion of the blame on the victims here. they inconvenienced him (shock bloody horror) so he hospitalised them. incredibly lucky he was too, as this would very easily have been a case of manslaughter. and you apparently seem to think that he was "driven" to this, i.e. it wasn't 100% his fault, his responsibility and his crime. poor man, those nasty cyclists were just begging to be attacked, riding around like people or something.


  • Options
    #18
    uberwolf
    Registered Users Posts: 7,580 ✭✭✭uberwolf


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    Yes. The law requires all road users to obey the rules of the road. If you think the rules of the road are wrong then I suggest you take it up with the CEO of the RSA or indeed the Minister for Transport - in the mean time please be sure to cycle in single file in heavy traffic as required.

    I'd be obliged if you could direct me to this rule.


  • Options
    #19
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    uberwolf wrote: »
    I'd be obliged if you could direct me to this rule.

    No problem. Its set out on the table on page 161


  • Options
    #20
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    niceonetom wrote: »
    how very dare i? well, like this really...

    you are essentially placing a portion of the blame on the victims here. they inconvenienced him (shock bloody horror) so he hospitalised them. incredibly lucky he was too, as this would very easily have been a case of manslaughter. and you apparently seem to think that he was "driven" to this, i.e. it wasn't 100% his fault, his responsibility and his crime. poor man, those nasty cyclists were just begging to be attacked, riding around like people or something.

    Your inference was that of condoning rape and I find that completely unacceptable. Withdraw it


  • Options
    #21
    niceonetom
    Registered Users Posts: 4,833 ✭✭✭niceonetom


    my inference is that you have difficulty identifying which party is to blame for a criminal act.

    i stand by it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    cyclopath2001
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,359 ✭✭✭cyclopath2001


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    No problem. Its set out on the table on page 161
    That's not a legal reference.
    Joe Malone wrote: »
    Yes. The law requires all road users to obey the rules of the road.
    As stated previously, it is the Acts and Statutory Instruments that people must obey. These are the real 'Rules of the Road'.
    Joe Malone wrote: »
    - in the mean time please be sure to cycle in single file in heavy traffic as required.
    By what law, exactly? Year, SI number and paragraph please.


  • Options
    #23
    uberwolf
    Registered Users Posts: 7,580 ✭✭✭uberwolf


    http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_cycling-safely.html

    the summary guide didn't give that much to me.

    I'm not a militant cyclist by any means, but I expect you're no kind of cyclist so let me give you a brief synopsis of my life on a bike.

    By various times I have

    Had a bus graze the length of its chassis of my elbow whilst overtaking me
    Had a truck driver stick his finger up at me after I'd dived from the road to avoid his rear tyre crushing me as it travelled over where I would have been (he had the opportunity to do this because I caught him at lights 30 seconds later)
    Been in a group of cyclists that had to slam on because a car who thought they could overtake us realised half way they couldn't, and just veered in, on the basis that we would do less damage than the car on coming.
    Had to take all manner of evasive action


    What I'm trying to do is establish some credibility for myself on this topic.

    I believe that cyclist are better off with pissed of drivers far up the road from them than stuck behind them. Cyclists should, and now of these new rules, obliged to let faster traffic past them.

    I believe cyclists are better qualified to make that decision then drivers - given both their likely greater experience and advantageous vantage point.

    So cyclists are not required by the document you cite, or any law to cycle single file. If it safe for them to do so by their judgement, they should allow cars past them - but that's etiquette only.

    The actions of that driver were abhorrent.

    Regarding cycling events in Ireland, the term is a rolling road closure. The implications of that are fairly clear.


  • Options
    #24
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    take it up with the RSA and/or the Minister - we all have to obey the rules of the road in their entirety not some ala carte menu like you seem to think


  • Options
    #25
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    niceonetom wrote: »
    my inference is that you have difficulty identifying which party is to blame for a criminal act.

    i stand by it.

    You suggested that I take the side of a rapist - that is completely unacceptable and I will report the comment if you continue to stand by it


  • Options
    #26
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    uberwolf wrote: »
    http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_cycling-safely.html

    the summary guide didn't give that much to me.

    I'm not a militant cyclist by any means, but I expect you're no kind of cyclist so let me give you a brief synopsis of my life on a bike.

    By various times I have

    Had a bus graze the length of its chassis of my elbow whilst overtaking me
    Had a truck driver stick his finger up at me after I'd dived from the road to avoid his rear tyre crushing me as it travelled over where I would have been (he had the opportunity to do this because I caught him at lights 30 seconds later)
    Been in a group of cyclists that had to slam on because a car who thought they could overtake us realised half way they couldn't, and just veered in, on the basis that we would do less damage than the car on coming.
    Had to take all manner of evasive action


    What I'm trying to do is establish some credibility for myself on this topic.

    I believe that cyclist are better off with pissed of drivers far up the road from them than stuck behind them. Cyclists should, and now of these new rules, obliged to let faster traffic past them.

    I believe cyclists are better qualified to make that decision then drivers - given both their likely greater experience and advantageous vantage point.

    So cyclists are not required by the document you cite, or any law to cycle single file. If it safe for them to do so by their judgement, they should allow cars past them - but that's etiquette only.

    The actions of that driver were abhorrent.

    Regarding cycling events in Ireland, the term is a rolling road closure. The implications of that are fairly clear.

    Did you read the rules of the road pg 161 as pointed out? The level of ignorance of the rule on this point is startling


  • Options
    #27
    Vélo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,920 ✭✭✭Vélo


    Jesus Joe will you calm down!


  • Options
    #28
    uberwolf
    Registered Users Posts: 7,580 ✭✭✭uberwolf


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    Did you read the rules of the road pg 161 as pointed out? The level of ignorance of the rule on this point is startling

    the rule states that 'must cycle single file... endanger... other traffic'. On endangerment explicitly, I believe that no law would ask someone to endanger themselves so as not to inconvenience someone else. So safety is the trump card in this discussion.

    I can see no circumstance, save blocking an ambulance, where cycling two a breast would endanger other traffic. And even if it did endanger other traffic, the law can not request someone to endanger themselves to avoid endangering someone else, and instinct would prevent it anyway.

    I can see many circumstances where dropping to single file would endanger the cyclists. You'll be gratified to know that I don't think cyclists should inconvenience other road users, but not to the point where they endanger themselves.

    So rather than call me or my post ignorant, you could ask for further explanation.

    So if cyclists don't automatically reduce to single file, it is often because they have decided it is not safe for a car to overtake them in that situation.

    Cycling single file encourages people to overtake when they might not otherwise. As I tried to show in my first post, I have enough experience to be able to speak with authority on the perils of cycling. I often make myself bigger on the road than needed, to prevent a bus squeezing by me if I don't think it's safe.






    I don't think I'm being coherent. If it is safe for themselves, then cyclists should move in. The rules you cited, nor any law of the land, can demand that anyone place themselves in danger. So if it's not safe then there is no absolute requirement. Safety is objective, and I think cyclists should be given the benefit of any doubt, as they are typically more experienced and safety conscious than other road users in the suburban, quasi rural circumstance under discussion.


  • Options
    #29
    Joe Malone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 96 ✭✭Joe Malone


    Uberwolf - you don't seem to have read the full contents of the table on pg 161.
    there are two circumstances outlined in the rules which require cyclists to cycle in single file
    1. being where not to do so would obstruct, endanger etc - this on its own would be enough for most people to realise that the letter as well as the spirit of the ROTR require cyclists to allow the traffic to flow and not cause unnecessary pile up of traffic behind them.
    2. - just in case the circumstances outlined above leave room for doubt, the second circumstance is simple - cyclists must cycle in single file in heavy traffic!

    They are the rules of the road as published by the Road Saftery Authority by the authority vested in it by the Minister for Transport in the Road Safety Authority Act 2006


  • Options
    #30
    kona
    Registered Users Posts: 7,525 ✭✭✭kona


    Joe Malone wrote: »
    I agree, however, if cyclists cycled in single file when inconveniencing other road users, it wouldn't have happened. Obviously the motorist in this case shouldn't have done what is alleged to have happened but EQUALLY he/she would not have been driven to such an extreme if the cyclists had shown a bit of courtesy (in the case of australian law) or just obeyed the ROTR in the case of a cycling event in Ireland.


    inconvieniencing???

    your having a laugh,

    if we all had you interpritation, cyclists could take this stance:

    motorists should pi$$ off the roads because the majority are a extremley dangerous inconvienience to cyclists.

    parking in cycle lanes anybody??
    lack of indication?
    driving too close???

    joe you will get more support over on motors such as the response to your, thread about the cyclists causing the all mighty motorist a "inconvienience" while doing a weekend event on a SUNDAY afternoon, surrounded by emergency vehicles and sanction by a supt.Garda.

    maybe next time a busy monday at 8am on a busy N road???with no permission or authorisation?? If we are going to inconvienience you lot in your air conditioned tin cans we may as well do it properley


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    FruitLover
    Registered Users Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭FruitLover


    Aquinas73 wrote: »
    Jesus Joe will you calm down!

    I'm afraid that would probably be impossible. As you may be aware, the internets are Serious Business.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement