Guys attacking cyclists in Dublin!!

BoardsMember

I've had people lean out the window and scream abuse when passing on the road from cruagh to viewing point recently.

On a couple of nights up at viewing point this winter there were kids in cars doing doughnuts in the car park, if I'd read this thread before then I'd have been even more scared in the dark!

Qualitymark

lolo62 wrote: »

Can't believe this..it confirms what I've been thinking lately about society and that's that average Joe these days is a sociopath

Scarcely.

If there were an easy way of knowing what insurance company any driver was with, the easy way to stop this dead in its tracks would be for a few people with helmet cameras to send footage to the insurance companies insuring the drivers in question, and for this to get plenty of publicity. If people thought their insurance (if any, of course) was going to quadruple as a result of dangerous behaviour towards cyclists it might sober them.

omri

I'm just gonna post here as I'm not sure if this was mentioned already or if it's true. Yesterday my wife told me that there is a gang targeting cyclists with good bikes in enniskerry especially if they cycle alone. They apparently are knocking people of their bikes in order to steal them. She was told that by few of her colleagues - if its true or not I don't know but better safe than sorry.

RainyDay

Qualitymark wrote: »

Scarcely.

If there were an easy way of knowing what insurance company any driver was with, the easy way to stop this dead in its tracks would be for a few people with helmet cameras to send footage to the insurance companies insuring the drivers in question, and for this to get plenty of publicity. If people thought their insurance (if any, of course) was going to quadruple as a result of dangerous behaviour towards cyclists it might sober them.

Interesting idea. It's amazing how many people driving branded vehicles seem to forget that they are an advertisement for their brand. Bring the employers into the picture too.

mal1

A little off topic but i'm not a fan of guys cycling around with cameras. I have a Go Pro and use it when I'm thundering down some hill in the Alps but I just don't like the idea of using one for my daily commute. The same s*it happens me as it does others, but I'm not feeling like I need to cycle around with a camera on my head yet. These incidents aren't frequent enough to justify.

Kavrocks

mal1 wrote: »

A little off topic but i'm not a fan of guys cycling around with cameras. I have a Go Pro and use it when I'm thundering down some hill in the Alps but I just don't like the idea of using one for my daily commute. The same s*it happens me as it does others, but I'm not feeling like I need to cycle around with a camera on my head yet. These incidents aren't frequent enough to justify.

Surely 1 incident of a cyclist being assaulted is 1 too many and warrants any cyclist taking measures to prevent it happening to them self or others?

Unknown Soldier

mal1 wrote: »

A little off topic but i'm not a fan of guys cycling around with cameras. I have a Go Pro and use it when I'm thundering down some hill in the Alps but I just don't like the idea of using one for my daily commute. The same s*it happens me as it does others, but I'm not feeling like I need to cycle around with a camera on my head yet. These incidents aren't frequent enough to justify.

If you ever get knocked off your bike by a car, like I did on the Walkinstown Roundabout, you'll understand how important a camera can be.

I hope you never need one!

William F

cython wrote: »

And where did the poster mention having suffered any of this?! Is it any wonder there's a compo culture when this is the goto advice that people get? :rolleyes:

What's wrong with compo culture? People pay ridiculous amounts to insurance companies every year. It's only right they cough up when there's an accident.

cython

William F wrote: »

What's wrong with compo culture? People pay ridiculous amounts to insurance companies every year. It's only right they cough up when there's an accident.

Are you really so naive as to ask that question?! The culture of compensation in Ireland is exactly why we pay so much to insurance companies. Insurance companies have always been businesses, and as such have always had to make a profit, but the cost of insurance (for everybody, not just those claiming!) is being forced up massively by exaggerated and frivolous claims. I have no qualms with people claiming for genuine losses incurred, but I'm fed up of seeing my costs of insurance continually increasing because of this culture, in spite of not having had to claim made against me to date (touch wood!). People on threads like this encouraging claims where no suggestion of loss/damage/distress have been made are only encouraging frivolous claims, and that is exactly what is wrong with the culture.

cython

Traumadoc wrote: »

Nowhere, I just mentioned it as a way to get the guards to take action.

But go ahead, fly off the handle.:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

I'm not flying off the handle, but threatening the Gardai with a frivolous insurance claim (see my previous post as to why I regard this as frivolous in this context based on the poster's description) will not (or at least should not) push them to take action any more than the original complaint.

JJJJNR

I wonder would one of these mounted on your bike be much of a deterrent.

mal1

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

If you ever get knocked off your bike by a car, like I did on the Walkinstown Roundabout, you'll understand how important a camera can be.

I hope you never need one!

I obviously understand what you are saying, I'm not blind to it and as I said the same happens to me as you, I've been knocked off a bike more than once. A camera might come in handy. It didn't for me since the driver has always stopped and we sorted it.

So I'm still not going to wear a camera and at the moment.

Worse things happened to me off the bike. That's my point.

fat bloke

The only sure place to ride to avoid being attacked as a cyclist...... is in A4 racing.




*Ba dum tish *

ThisRegard

Not quite in the same league, but about an hour ago there was a crazy girl walking along the coast at Baldoyle holding her arm up giving everyone, cyclists and motorists, the finger. I think she was just pissed she was wet and freezing.

Now where are those insurance forms for my claim?

Qualitymark

mal1 wrote: »

A little off topic but i'm not a fan of guys cycling around with cameras.

Me neither, but at a time when saaaairtin paaaarties are pushing a dangerous anti-cyclist line, it may be temporarily necessary.

HivemindXX

I had to stop reading this about half way through because it was just too sickening. Yet, I imagine if you asked the random Joe Duffy listener or Finian McGrath type you would be almost certain to hear that cyclists are the biggest danger on the road.

dr.fuzzenstein

Macy0161 wrote: »

If you have the reg number(s) of these Italian reg cars, you could try to report them to Revenue. If they're resident here, they're supposed to transfer the car to an Irish Reg within 7 days of it entering the state.

That is for an Irish person buying a car abroad and bringing it in. A foreigner coming to Ireland has a grace period of 12 months:
http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/vrt/leaflets/temporary-exemption-foreign-registered.html

The period of time that the vehicle is in the State does not exceed 12 months.

7 Days would be very difficult for any foreign reg cars that are here for longer than a week but not resident here.

dr.fuzzenstein

William F wrote: »

What's wrong with compo culture? People pay ridiculous amounts to insurance companies every year. It's only right they cough up when there's an accident.

Have you ever wondered why you pay a ridiculous amount for insurance? I guess not. Better put in your claim before they jack up the premium (again).

mal1

Kavrocks wrote: »

Surely 1 incident of a cyclist being assaulted is 1 too many and warrants any cyclist taking measures to prevent it happening to them self or others?

Absolutely disagree. I can't agree with the attitude that we all must react and change our behaviour due to the actions of a few.

Kevincavan83

Personaly before i started cycling i used to get quite frustrated with cyclists hogging lanes, that was until i got back onto a bike after many years and you realise how vulnerable that you are on a bicycle and now show a lot more.
But even at that i would never have felt the need to try attack a cyclist with my car, and if someone tried it to me i would not be too impressed and if someone tried assaulting me when i stop i will do what is legally entitled of me to stop someone from carrying it out.

Traumadoc

cython wrote: »

I'm not flying off the handle, but threatening the Gardai with a frivolous insurance claim (see my previous post as to why I regard this as frivolous in this context based on the poster's description) will not (or at least should not) push them to take action any more than the original complaint.

Who threatened a gardai?

You have every right to ask the gardai for the drivers insurance details.

If every driver was aware that they could lose their no claim bonus for an episode of road rage - the roads would be a lot safer.

This is not about making money , its about making it safer for cyclists.

cython

Traumadoc wrote: »

Who threatened a gardai?

If you're going to try to be a bloody pedant, then at least use the correct singular form, i.e. a Garda! Ultimately though, at no point has the poster indicated that they intend to make any claim (despite your best attempts to encourage it), so going to the Gardai seeking insurance information under that pretence would be just that, threatening a claim to get such information. It is not especially relevant that they would not be the party at whom the action would be directed, as the threat (in an admittedly loose sense of the word) of same action (and based on the circumstances so far it would only be a threat) is being delivered by means of the request for insurance details, i.e. to the Gardai.

I see you edited your post, so I'll address all the additions after your original point.

Traumadoc wrote: »

You have every right to ask the gardai for the drivers insurance details.

Yes, and if you do not intend to make a claim (and as mentioned above there is no suggestion of this from anyone other than you) that is arguably wasting the time of whatever Garda has to deal with you, which is less than kosher under most circumstances.

Traumadoc wrote: »

If every driver was aware that they could lose their no claim bonus for an episode of road rage - the roads would be a lot safer.

Rubbish. Every driver should already be aware that their insurance can be impacted by being convicted of various motoring offences (penalty points, to say the least), but the offences are still committed. If you are reliant on a claim for some sort of mental suffering without either a witness or physical evidence to impact no-claims to the same end, I'm sorry, but you're immediately backing a loser there as any insurance company will refuse to pay out on the basis of a claim without substantiation.

Traumadoc wrote: »

This is not about making money , its about making it safer for cyclists.

Nowhere did I suggest this was about making money, nor that you said it was. However, frivolous claims against insurance policies don't serve any safety purpose either.

At this point, I'm going to bow out, as you are just twisting anything I say, and have dragged this so far from the point of trying to simply get the Gardai to take action that it is pathetic at this point.

Traumadoc

cython wrote: »

If you're going to try to be a bloody pedant, then at least use the correct singular form, i.e. a Garda! Ultimately though, at no point has the poster indicated that they intend to make any claim (despite your best attempts to encourage it), so going to the Gardai seeking insurance information under that pretence would be just that, threatening a claim to get such information. It is not especially relevant that they would not be the party at whom the action would be directed, as the threat (in an admittedly loose sense of the word) of same action (and based on the circumstances so far it would only be a threat) is being delivered by means of the request for insurance details, i.e. to the Gardai.

I see you edited your post, so I'll address all the additions after your original point.


Yes, and if you do not intend to make a claim (and as mentioned above there is no suggestion of this from anyone other than you) that is arguably wasting the time of whatever Garda has to deal with you, which is less than kosher under most circumstances.

Rubbish. Every driver should already be aware that their insurance can be impacted by being convicted of various motoring offences (penalty points, to say the least), but the offences are still committed. If you are reliant on a claim for some sort of mental suffering without either a witness or physical evidence to impact no-claims to the same end, I'm sorry, but you're immediately backing a loser there as any insurance company will refuse to pay out on the basis of a claim without substantiation.


Nowhere did I suggest this was about making money, nor that you said it was. However, frivolous claims against insurance policies don't serve any safety purpose either.

At this point, I'm going to bow out, as you are just twisting anything I say, and have dragged this so far from the point of trying to simply get the Gardai to take action that it is pathetic at this point.

My son will not go on the main road after a car load of idiots decided that it would be a good idea to scare the child.

Is there a crime , when a passenger shouts out of a window?

Actually probably not.

Gardai did speak to the driver for me ( I got the whole event on video).

The same idiots could do it again. Perhaps if they lost their no claims bonus they may not?

dr.fuzzenstein

Fabulous. "I deserve compensation because someone looked at me the wrong way". No longer do we have to pretend to slip on "something", no more wearing false bandages and neck braces, no more having to remember which leg to limp on. Simply say "oh noes, my poor little ego has been bruised, woe betide unto me, quick! Give me money!". Well, coming to think of it, I could do with a handy 20k, I think I like that idea. The next bastard looks at me cock-eyed, I'll be having you!

Traumadoc

It is not about compensation, its about protecting cyclists.

ezra_pound

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Fabulous. "I deserve compensation because someone looked at me the wrong way". No longer do we have to pretend to slip on "something", no more wearing false bandages and neck braces, no more having to remember which leg to limp on. Simply say "oh noes, my poor little ego has been bruised, woe betide unto me, quick! Give me money!". Well, coming to think of it, I could do with a handy 20k, I think I like that idea. The next bastard looks at me cock-eyed, I'll be having you!

Well no. You can't claim damages if someone looked at you a certain way. You have to be put in a situation whereby you suffer on account of being made to believe that you were about to suffer a very serious injury or death. This has happened to me at least once on a bike and that time I think that if I had a camera I would seriously consider suing particularly as the drivers response showed no apology but intention.

cython

Traumadoc wrote: »

It is not about compensation, its about protecting cyclists.

Ok, I'm briefly reneging on my comment about bowing out, for 2 reasons:

1. I'm sorry to hear about your son's scare, I genuinely am, and I hope he can get over it, but
2. That is something that should be prevented by laws. If you genuinely want to protect a group, it needs a basis in law, and to be enforced as such. Relying on the policies of a disparate group of private companies who happen to fulfil a legal responsibility of their customers is pissing into the wind.

I fear that you have personalised this a little bit too much due to your own experience. What if your son had been traumatised by a pedestrian screaming at him from the footpath, and/or chasing after him? They would have no insurance to use as a deterrent in this manner, but it would have been just as wrong as what the passengers in the car did. These are both anti-social behaviours, and should be treated in similar manners, but you are advocating a two-tier system/approach, which may also negatively impact all other drivers if claims increase.

Horses for courses is the phrase that comes to mind, and you're suggesting a lame donkey, tbh.

Traumadoc

cython wrote: »

Ok, I'm briefly reneging on my comment about bowing out, for 2 reasons:

1. I'm sorry to hear about your son's scare, I genuinely am, and I hope he can get over it, but
2. That is something that should be prevented by laws. If you genuinely want to protect a group, it needs a basis in law, and to be enforced as such. Relying on the policies of a disparate group of private companies who happen to fulfil a legal responsibility of their customers is pissing into the wind.

I fear that you have personalised this a little bit too much due to your own experience. What if your son had been traumatised by a pedestrian screaming at him from the footpath, and/or chasing after him? They would have no insurance to use as a deterrent in this manner, but it would have been just as wrong as what the passengers in the car did. These are both anti-social behaviours, and should be treated in similar manners, but you are advocating a two-tier system/approach, which may also negatively impact all other drivers if claims increase.

Horses for courses is the phrase that comes to mind, and you're suggesting a lame donkey, tbh.

Funnily enough I have never experienced a pedestrian screaming at a child cycling by.
But put 4 lads into a car and it seems to occur regularly. ( as well as having objects thrown at you)

If a driver knew they could loose their no claims bonus because of the action of one of the passengers perhaps they would think twice about letting the passenger roll down the window.

lolo62

Traumadoc wrote: »

It is not about compensation, its about protecting cyclists.

Is it not possible to in include cycle lanes in foot paths? Like i know we don't have as much space as on the continent etc but why can't we make them part of the paths with laws/rules that they are only for bikes not pedestrians.
It doesn't make sense with the width of our roads that cyclists should have to compete for space...

pablo128

Traumadoc wrote: »

Funnily enough I have never experienced a pedestrian screaming at a child cycling by.
But put 4 lads into a car and it seems to occur regularly. ( as well as having objects thrown at you)

If a driver knew they could loose their no claims bonus because of the action of one of the passengers perhaps they would think twice about letting the passenger roll down the window.

I am genuinely sorry to hear about your son. However, do you think a generous amount of money will make his fear of going out on the main road subside?

Traumadoc

pablo128 wrote: »

I am genuinely sorry to hear about your son. However, do you think a generous amount of money will make his fear of going out on the main road subside?

No.

But the driver loosing his no claims bonus may change his behaviour ( actually his passengers)

magicbastarder

pablo128 wrote: »

I am genuinely sorry to hear about your son. However, do you think a generous amount of money will make his fear of going out on the main road subside?

you seem to have missed the point. the money would not be intended to lessen the impact of the event, but to lessen the likelihood of it happening.

pablo128

Traumadoc wrote: »

No.

But the driver loosing his no claims bonus may change his behaviour ( actually his passengers)

So what would you be claiming compensation for? And what amount would you be claiming? What kind of loss would you have had to be compensated for?

Unknown Soldier

pablo128 wrote: »

So what would you be claiming compensation for? And what amount would you be claiming? What kind of loss would you have had to be compensated for?

I don't think this is about compensation tbh.

You're making it about that.

Traumadoc

pablo128 wrote: »

So what would you be claiming compensation for? And what amount would you be claiming? What kind of loss would you have had to be compensated for?

Mental health , stress, its all in the PIAB site.
The minute the insurance company hears there is a potential claim, the drivers insurance increases.

pablo128

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

I don't think this is about compensation tbh.

You're making it about that.
.

How could someone lose their no claims bonus, if there is no claim made on their policy? So it is about compensation.

pablo128

Traumadoc wrote: »

Mental health , stress, its all in the PIAB site.
The minute the insurance company hears there is a potential claim, the drivers insurance increases.

It increases at the next renewal date. You haven't told me what you would be claiming a loss of, or an expected amount of compensation.

For what it's worth, I'm not on an anti cyclist crusade.

Traumadoc

pablo128 wrote: »

How could someone lose their no claims bonus, if there is no claim made on their policy? So it is about compensation.

No , its not about compensation. Its about changing driver/passenger behaviour.
The minute the insurance company hears there is a potential claim, you lose your no claims bonus.

pablo128

Traumadoc wrote: »

No , its not about compensation. Its about changing driver/passenger behaviour.
The minute the insurance company hears there is a potential claim, you lose your no claims bonus.

And if it's found to be a spurious claim, the no claims bonus will be re-instated.

Traumadoc

pablo128 wrote: »

It increases at the next renewal date. You haven't told me what you would be claiming a loss of, or an expected amount of compensation.

For what it's worth, I'm not on an anti cyclist crusade.

The compensation would be for stress and anxiety, the value would probably less than €500. Again its not about compensation, its about the driver loosing their no claims bonus.

Traumadoc

pablo128 wrote: »

And if it's found to be a spurious claim, the no claims bonus will be re-instated.

Yes of course.

Unknown Soldier

pablo128 wrote: »

How could someone lose their no claims bonus, if there is no claim made on their policy? So it is about compensation.

Post reported for personal abuse, btw.

Grand.

You're obviously one of the people who thinks it's all about their "no claims bonus" and knows nothing and I mean nothing about the insurance industry.

You're one of their sheep. They LOVE you.

Do some research into insurance algorithms.

You're either a safe bet (free money to them) or a "loser" you'll cost them.

pablo128

Traumadoc wrote: »

The compensation would be for stress and anxiety, the value would probably less than €500. Again its not about compensation, its about the driver loosing their no claims bonus.

If you were awarded 500 euro, the driver can re-imburse that amount to the insurance company and keep his no claims bonus.

Look, honestly you are barking up the wrong tree with this no claims bonus thing. You need to get a drivers reg and contact gardai. I would consider people who attack and roar at cyclists to be scumbags, and as scumbags they most likely don't want garda attention, or their reg no to be 'on the system'.

pablo128

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Grand.

You're obviously one of the people who thinks it's all about their "no claims bonus" and knows nothing and I mean nothing about the insurance industry.

You're one of their sheep. They LOVE you.

Do some research into insurance algorithms.

You're either a safe bet (free money to them) or a "loser" you'll cost them.

I have been paying insurance for many years now. I know how it works.

If you have some facts to contradict me, I'm all ears.

Traumadoc

pablo128 wrote: »

If you were awarded 500 euro, the driver can re-imburse that amount to the insurance company and keep his no claims bonus.

Look, honestly you are barking up the wrong tree with this no claims bonus thing. You need to get a drivers reg and contact gardai. I would consider people who attack and roar at cyclists to be scumbags, and as scumbags they most likely don't want garda attention, or their reg no to be 'on the system'.

Well if the driver was to loose €500 I would consider that a good thing.

The whole point about this was that the guards were not interested, and there is little that they could do.

dr.fuzzenstein

ezra_pound wrote: »

Well no. You can't claim damages if someone looked at you a certain way. You have to be put in a situation whereby you suffer on account of being made to believe that you were about to suffer a very serious injury or death. This has happened to me at least once on a bike and that time I think that if I had a camera I would seriously consider suing particularly as the drivers response showed no apology but intention.

Could happen in a car as well. And yes,"being looked at in a certain way" could mean someone coming over and looking at me in a threatening way. If someone just can convince the judge that he/she genuinely believed they might come to harm, it should be easy to persuade the judge to loosen the other side's purse strings.
Of course there already is an offense of "threatening, abusive or insulting behavior", wouldn't that allow someone to claim compensation?
It just adds to the list of "I got owie, now gimme, gimme gimme!" legislation in this country.

Unknown Soldier

pablo128 wrote: »

I have been paying insurance for many years now. I know how it works.

If you have some facts to contradict me, I'm all ears.

Example.. You pay 420 a year on house insurance.

You make a claim for 16,000 because your kitchen burnt down.

What's the cost of your house insurance for the next three years?

I'm guessing you think it's lots.

Bed!

Traumadoc

A no claims bonus for a driver is typically 60%, no?

pablo128

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

Example.. You pay 420 a year on house insurance.

You make a claim for 16,000 because your kitchen burnt down.

What's the cost of your house insurance for the next three years?

I'm guessing you think it's lots.

Bed!

I don't see any facts there. Just a vague scenario, which has little to do with claiming off car insurance for stress and anxiety.

dr.fuzzenstein

Well, it should work both ways!
Driver comes up to cyclist and starts verbally abusing him, under Pussy Law #4, the driver now has to pay compensation and will lose his no claims.
No imagine the reverse. Cyclist runs up to car, kicking it, screaming, threatening and generally making a tit of himself, HIS car insurance should be affected the same way. It only makes sense, I mean we can't have one law for some people and another for others? If people decide to become threatening and abusive, they should be treated the same way.
Cyclists will now point out that a car is more dangerous as a weapon than a bike, well, that should be vehicular manslaughter and it should be viewed very dimly indeed.
But for tosspots throwing their arms around, screaming their heads off and acting the maggot, it should all be the same.
Of course in the good old days you just lamped the cnut. Had you gone to the police and wined about it instead, they would have laughed at you. Gotta love the 70's, things where easier back then.