I'm a woman on my own stop threatening me

FoxT

In this particular video, the cyclist is being a bit pushy but not unreasonable.

(He is definitely quite snotty in some of the other videos he has posted).

The Woman's behaviour is utterly shameful. From her stupid driving, to her panicked lies 'Stop threatening me' - she reminded me of Amy.


-FoxT

seamus

ResearchWill wrote: »

The EXPLANATORY NOTE, is not part of the regs and if it contradicts the regs only the regs will be the law.

No, but the regs are pretty clear. Cycle lanes are only mandatory where they're on pedestrianised streets or they're contra-flow. In any case, I've never seen the former and the latter are very rare.

ResearchWill

seamus wrote: »

No, but the regs are pretty clear. Cycle lanes are only mandatory where they're on pedestrianised streets or they're contra-flow. In any case, I've never seen the former and the latter are very rare.

That's not what the regs say, I have put up exactly what they say here again but ill break it up to be a bit clearer.


(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—

(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, (1 any road on which there is a cycle track)
a portion of a road, (2 any portion of a road on which there is a cycle track)
or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or (3 and pedestrian area on which there is a cycle track)

(b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track. (4 any contra flow cycle track)

So I can not see where it says only in 3 and 4 it clearly says on any road or part of a road.

Spook_ie

seamus wrote: »

Your information is out of date.

This is the relevant SI, lest we end up going around in circles;
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html

14. (1) A cycle track shall be indicated by—


(a) traffic sign number RUS 009 (with-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM 023 (broken white line) which latter signs may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the right hand and left hand edges of the cycle track,


(b) traffic sign number RUS 059 (contra-flow cycle track) provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) which may be marked on the right hand edge of the cycle track or on the left hand edge of the cycle track or on both sides, or


(c) traffic sign number RUS 058 (shared track for pedal cycles and pedestrians).


(2) The periods of operation of a cycle track may be indicated on an information plate which may be provided in association with traffic sign number RUS 009, RUS 059 or RUS 058.


(3) Where a cycle track, provided by traffic sign number RUS 009 in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 (continuous white line) or RRM 023 (broken white line), is two-way, pedal cycles shall be driven as near as possible to the left hand side of each lane.


(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—


(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, a portion of a road, or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or


(b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track.


(5)(a) A mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair, shall not be driven along or across a cycle track on the right hand edge of which traffic sign number RRM 022 has been provided, save for the purposes of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the cycle track or from a roadway to such a place.


(b) A reference in paragraph (a) to driving along or across a cycle track shall include a reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a cycle track.


(6) Where a vehicle is parked on that part of a road in relation to which traffic sign number RUS 009 is provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 or RRM 023 or traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided in association with traffic sign number RRM 022 or at a place where traffic sign number RUS 058 is provided, in advance of the commencement of the period indicated on an information plate which may accompany traffic sign number RUS 009, RUS 059 or RUS 058, the parking of the said vehicle shall cease and the vehicle shall be removed from that part of the road prior to the commencement of that period save where article 5(5) applies.


(7)(a) A shared track shall be indicated by the provision of traffic sign number RUS 058 (shared track for pedal cycles and pedestrians) and the design displayed on the particular traffic sign number RUS 058 that is provided will indicate if the shared track is a non-segregated track where there is no visual or physical segregation of use between pedestrians and persons driving pedal cycles or if the shared track is a segregated track with a continuous white line on the track or a barrier provided along the length of the track signifying a separate area for use by persons driving pedal cycles and an adjoining separate area for use by pedestrians.


(b) At a location where traffic sign number RUS 058 indicates that a shared track is non-segregated, as described in paragraph (a), pedestrians and persons driving pedal cycles may use that track.


(c) At a location where traffic sign number RUS 058 indicates that a shared track is segregated, as described in paragraph (a), persons driving pedal cycles shall only use the area of the track that is designated on the sign for use by them and pedestrians shall only use the area of the track that is designated on the sign for use by them.


(d) A mechanically propelled vehicle, other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair, shall not be driven along or across a shared track where traffic sign number RUS 058 is provided, save for the purposes of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the shared track or from a roadway to such a place.


(e) A reference in paragraph (d) to driving along or across a shared track shall include a reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a shared track.


(f) The end of a prohibition or of a restriction under this sub-article shall be indicated by the provision of traffic sign number RUS 058 accompanied by an information plate specifying the word ‘Críoch/END’.


(g) In this sub-article, ‘pedestrians’ includes any person using a wheelchair, mechanically propelled, or otherwise.”,

Where does it actually say that cyclists don't have to use a cycle path when provided?

My understanding of it is that if RUS009/RRM022 or 023 are present then because the circular blue background sign is there they are mandatory signs not advised signs

Also read this bit

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.


(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.


(

So every time you overtake a slower cyclist just be aware that you don't inconvenience buses, taxis, cars etc using the road and that you don't overtake 3 abreast.

Back on Topic

Yer women if she was a man would be a dick, fancy driving like that and no ****in TAXI sign on the roof

edit:- I see ReasearchWill was working at the same time as me...

The Barefoot Pizza Thief

Cynthia Whining Mechanic wrote: »

I don't understand these comments.

We're cunts who feel in some way life has shortchanged us and so we vent online from time to time in an effort to try and release that pent up frustration. It's either this or regular McDonald's massacres.

P.Walnuts

Endless Rules of the Road Regulations being posted a good thread not make

Knasher

Spook_ie wrote: »

Where does it actually say that cyclists don't have to use a cycle path when provided?

The old traffic regulations from 1997 said

(3) All pedal cycles must be driven on a cycle track where one is provided.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html

This was then amended with the 2012 regulations, with the section saying that you must use a cycle path removed. And an explanatory note explaining that the use of cycle paths outside of pedestrian areas or contra flow lanes is not mandatory.

I'm feeling pretty confident that this is the correct interpretation.

mikom

The old Mikom regulations from 1997 said:

Don't be a dick.

Both the cyclist and the driver broke it in the video.

OCorcrainn

The cyclist is an arrogant dickhead, there was a parked car on the right coming up hence why she was not on the right side. He threatened. cursed at her, threatened, intimidated her, said he would call the gardaí. He had no problem showing her identity but not his own.

He is a drama queen and should have just STFU and move on and tried to see it from her POV instead of attacking her. Instead he wanted to be confrontational and more or less harassed and verbally abused her without provocation. She looked and probably was terrified of him.

He comes across as an aggressive, arrogant and stupid gobsh*te, thank god for us (and him) he doesn't drive.

dj jarvis

dark crystal wrote: »

And just to illustrate your point....



Woman overreacts to getting sworn at = on her period.

its a joke , chillaxe :rolleyes:

and anyway, she might have been , and TBH if i were her i would rather been know for throwing a wobble BECAUSE i had the painters in , rather than its because im a mentalist .

and you think you are being classy by not using the phrase ONTHEBLOB :eek:
just no pleasing you girls

ResearchWill

Knasher wrote: »

The old traffic regulations from 1997 said

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html

This was then amended with the 2012 regulations, with the section saying that you must use a cycle path removed. And an explanatory note explaining that the use of cycle paths outside of pedestrian areas or contra flow lanes is not mandatory.

I'm feeling pretty confident that this is the correct interpretation.

If the explanatory note and the text contradict each other as they do here the explanatory note as it is not part of the regs is ignored.

1ZRed

Tom_Cruise wrote: »

I feel sorry of the husband/boyfriend/partner of that woman, Imagine it.

Over all though i thought it was an entertaining video. The cyclist seems like a funny fellow.

She said she's "on her own", no need to worry, Tom!

captainzero

think his behaviour is indicative of a problem in his life maybe in the bedroom dept.

Spook_ie

Knasher wrote: »

The old traffic regulations from 1997 said

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/si/0182.html

This was then amended with the 2012 regulations, with the section saying that you must use a cycle path removed. And an explanatory note explaining that the use of cycle paths outside of pedestrian areas or contra flow lanes is not mandatory.

I'm feeling pretty confident that this is the correct interpretation.

A blue circular sign is encountered it is a mandatory sign not an advisory sign

jaffacakesyum

bluesteel wrote: »

It's a narrow road, but all the other cars left enough room for the cyclists - and other cars that are entitled to use that road; the point is that she wouldn't back down.

The guy is a dick in his other videos, but he's right in this one

I agree - like I said, the woman is clearly in the wrong but I've seen a lot, lot worse every single day from motorists (and cyclists) that would warrant getting annoyed over but I cannot for the life of me see why this man was so aggressive. And from the other stories about him he sounds like a complete twat. I can't believe a lot of people think the woman is the worse of the two.

Jade Polite Harvester wrote: »

I'd say most women who finds themselves in a position where a man hysterically screaming obscenities at her would find it very distressing.

And who does he think he is policing the roads like this?.

I bet my life if that was me, and most any other man in that jeep there is no way he'd have carried on like that, not a f*cking chance.

I don't think she was actually scared in this position - otherwise she wouldn't have opened her door.

But I 100% agree with your last point.

Cody Pomeray

OCorcrainn wrote: »

there was a parked car on the right coming up hence why she was not on the right sight

there's clearly plenty of room on that side of the road. yes the cyclist is a dick, but as he said, the procedure is that traffic waits behind stationery traffic until the road is clear from oncoming traffic. They don't block oncoming traffic, that's ridiculous.

keith16

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

I'm no keyboard warrior but there are somedays where i have come so close to snapping and one day this cúnt will be on the ground with his face smashed in.

PS - If your on boards good sir, i'm the guy with the brown hair and the red bag that told you to go **** yourself last time. You know me you shout at me all the time. You complete wánker.

Fair play. I hate this type of behaviour, be it in a car, a bike or whatever. Shows a complete lack of self-awareness.

Life is much more enjoyable when you just slow down and apply a bit of common sense. Clearly this guy has none. This type of attitude where people actively go looking for trouble to simply prove they are in the right can ultimately end up putting them in an early grave. Very sad indeed.

K.Flyer

I know this road very well and have used it often enough and have had to pass parked cars in the same manner as she did... however... there was no need for her to hug the kerb, blocking the path of the cyclist as she did in order to pass the parked cars.
She was in the wrong, she did nothing to alter her driving line and expected the cyclist to go around her on the wrong side or mount the pavement, both illegal!
Instead of waiting for her to figure out what she needed to do and wait and hold his ground he went and became abusive towards her thereby loosing his validation and pretty much his arguement.
At the end of it both of them ended up looking like a pair of gob****es their moment immortalised on the internet forever

Oran17

Have been watching this guys videos for ages, all ways funny seeing him shout at some motorists.

iDave

After careful consideration I can conclude they're both twats. But the cyclist is worse, he went looking for confrontation when none was needed.

SparkySpitfire

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

There were no grounds for a confrontation because the cyclist had moved further down the road by the time the men had decided not to move the car or issue him with verbal abuse. The cyclist verbally abused them to in the tit for tat that ensued.

Seriously, you might have a point if the cyclist had completely ignored the two men parked on his lane. As it is, we can see that he confronts both men and women.

The woman in this case was particularly obtuse from the outset, which explains (but does not excuse...) his increased aggression from early on.

You're not reading what I'm saying properly. Yes, I KNOW he confronted both, but the manner in which he did was totally different.

Gorilla Rising

seamus wrote: »

On this thread you have a bunch of people lambasting him for not cycling in the cycle lane in one video, then in another video he's being lambasted for complaining about a car parked in the cycle lane rather than just going around it.

There was room to go around the car and stay in the cycle lane though. Even if he had to venture out side it for literally two or three seconds due to an obstruction, I doubt anyone would complain.

In the other video he could've been cycling in the lane, but chose not to (for whatever reason).

You're leaving out these little details in order to make it look like a witch hunt against the cyclist.

The silly cow is completely in the wrong. He's a complete toolbox and going around looking for trouble from other road users (and bullying those he deems queit/passive) doesn't do decent cyclists any good whatsoever.

Knasher

ResearchWill wrote: »

If the explanatory note and the text contradict each other as they do here the explanatory note as it is not part of the regs is ignored.

I'd imagine that must be an oversight when the regs were being written, as the dept of transport have been quite vocal about removing the mandatory requirement of cycle lanes. Both in public and in the explanatory note.

That being said, I do have to agree with your interpretation of what the regulations actually say.

Elmer Blooker

captainzero wrote: »

think his behaviour is indicative of a problem in his life maybe in the bedroom dept.

so you think he's married then?

JD DABA

Bike Rider, a shadowy flight into the dangerous world of a man who does not exist... to motorists.
Michael Bike, a young loner on a bicycle crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of naughty drivers who dont give way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo8Qls0HnWo

Cody Pomeray

SparkySpitfire wrote: »

You're not reading what I'm saying properly. Yes, I KNOW he confronted both, but the manner in which he did was totally different.

You're not reading what I'm saying properly. Yes, I KNOW he confronted both in a different manner, because the individuals he confronted reacted in polar opposite ways. One agreed to move his car at the outset, the other steadfastly refused from the outset.

Of course he was going to react differently.

As an aside, it's worth noting that he called the driver "buddy" before he approached the car, indicating that he may not have realized the driver was female. I really disagree that there is any gender bias to this cyclist's arrogance.

Stella Virgo

complete stupid bo**ix on bicycle,with his toy camera he thinks hes superman,what a LOSER. the guy in the second car told him to "move on ya bastard" he also had car door open, did our brave woman abuser challenge him,no ****ing fear, scuttled off home to mammy.
it takes bravery to call a woman an "asshole" then cycle away as as fast as you can....
did she sign the release form for you post her image on a public forum.....i doubt it..
she can legally sue you and i hope she does,ya gutless wimp.....

seamus

ResearchWill wrote: »

That's not what the regs say, I have put up exactly what they say here again but ill break it up to be a bit clearer.


(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—

(a) a cycle track is provided on a road, (1 any road on which there is a cycle track)You
a portion of a road, (2 any portion of a road on which there is a cycle track)
or an area at the entrance to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or (3 and pedestrian area on which there is a cycle track)

(b) a cycle track is a contra-flow cycle track where traffic sign number RUS 059 is provided and pedal cycles shall only be driven in a contra-flow direction on such track. (4 any contra flow cycle track)

So I can not see where it says only in 3 and 4 it clearly says on any road or part of a road.

Your interpretation is incorrect as each part is not an independent subclause.

Parentheses will help:

(4) A pedal cycle shall be driven on a cycle track where—

(a) a cycle track is provided on (a road, a portion of a road,
or an area at the entrance) to which traffic sign number RUS 021 (pedestrianised street or area) is provided, or

This has been stated by the minister who enacted them and is clarified in the explanatory note. I'm going to go with the most obvious and the intended interpretation.

Carraig95

Regardless of who was right or wrong, personally I think it's a terrible indictment of modern day society where people can't have a bad day without having your personal matters splashed all over the internet for keyboard warriors to judge and comment.

I have no doubt that every single poster on this and every other forum have had an argument and been in the wrong at some stage in their lives. Imagine if it was posted all over the internet for people to view.

Legs.Eleven

That video is completely nuts. I can't get my head around the behaviour of either of them. A big, massive WTF?

yermandan

HILLARIOUS vid

cocoa

Carraig95 wrote: »

Regardless of who was right or wrong, personally I think it's a terrible indictment of modern day society where people can't have a bad day without having your personal matters splashed all over the internet for keyboard warriors to judge and comment.

I have no doubt that every single poster on this and every other forum have had an argument and been in the wrong at some stage in their lives. Imagine if it was posted all over the internet for people to view.

Actually I think this is great, I like the idea of accountability, especially in public spaces. I'm not always right (spoiler: I'm human ), and I think it would be a pretty boring life if I was. What I'm generally most proud of is my ability to admit when I'm wrong, and I'd be delighted if more people were called out for lacking this ability...

Incidentally, this also works both ways. Perhaps we could also acknowledge that everyone loses their cool sometimes (myself included) and not idolise people so much. I know if I had an argument publicized where it was clear after the fact that I was being unfair/wrong/prejudiced/aggressive/etc, then I would want to apologise, and I would hope (assuming I wasn't too much of an ass) that most people would accept that.

Cody Pomeray

Stella Virgo wrote: »

the guy in the second car told him to "move on ya bastard"

no he didn't...

she can legally sue you and i hope she does,ya gutless wimp.....

eh? under what law?

Fr_Dougal

Stella Virgo wrote: »

complete stupid bo**ix on bicycle,with his toy camera he thinks hes superman,what a LOSER. the guy in the second car told him to "move on ya bastard" he also had car door open, did our brave woman abuser challenge him,no ****ing fear, scuttled off home to mammy.
it takes bravery to call a woman an "asshole" then cycle away as as fast as you can....
did she sign the release form for you post her image on a public forum.....i doubt it..
she can legally sue you and i hope she does,ya gutless wimp.....

Ah but what do you really think? Don't hold back now...

Dr Nic

Didnt the guy in the second car say 'good on ya'??

Dr Nic

The cyclist here didnt do a single thing wrong! Yer one is a complete tard who is also a conniving evil b!tch. The penny dropped that she was in the wrong and then she cried wolf...
Despicable carry on by her

zenno

Jade Polite Harvester wrote: »

That cyclist is a complete c*nt imo. And who gives him the right to go putting people like this poor lady on youtube for public ridicule and he himself hides behind his camera and a youtube username?.

I hope she reports him for a road rage incident, and he's provided her with enough video evidence too.

Furthermore if that lady has an angry partner, brother or male friends he won't be too hard to find a cyclist on the Merrion Road on a racing bike and Contour Roam (he provides this info on his other vids), he won't be feeling too f*cking smart about himself then.

If she was one of my female friends I'd clip that c*nts wings for him fairly sharpish.

Now that's a childish comment, imo.

That woman should not have blocked his right of passage.

dj jarvis

Stella Virgo wrote: »

complete stupid bo**ix on bicycle,with his toy camera he thinks hes superman,what a LOSER. the guy in the second car told him to "move on ya bastard" he also had car door open, did our brave woman abuser challenge him,no ****ing fear, scuttled off home to mammy.
it takes bravery to call a woman an "asshole" then cycle away as as fast as you can....
did she sign the release form for you post her image on a public forum.....i doubt it..
she can legally sue you and i hope she does,ya gutless wimp.....

the guy said good on ya,

it not illegal to film in a public place,

she should stop being a stupid crunt in public and then she wont have to worry about being filmed or it being made public,

crazy girl goes nuts sock horror.

returnNull

Stella Virgo wrote: »

did she sign the release form for you post her image on a public forum.....i doubt it..

more sh1te in your post.

You don't need permission to film anyone in a public place and the owner of that film can do what he wants with it.Also the video doesnt libel or defame the silly bint so not sure what she could sue over.

The Highwayman

AdamD wrote: »

Absolutely no need for the cyclist to stop. He was completely looking for drama.

That maybe so, but was he wrong? And how was he supposed yo pass on the left with her there?

Wanderer2010

Carraig95 wrote: »

I have no doubt that every single poster on this and every other forum have had an argument and been in the wrong at some stage in their lives. Imagine if it was posted all over the internet for people to view.

Eh? Hes the one who bloody posted it up on You Tube, why didnt he just keep it to himself if he didnt want people to comment and judge. He choose to put it up so he can live with the fallout. If he wanted to keep it private then he didnt have to post it. He did, so tough sh!t.

Personally, i think hes a coward, he was a knee trembler with the men but went gung ho with the woman, pussy.

yermandan

Excellent example of whats really wrong with society these days. 2 tools out tooling eachother

Pawwed Rig

There's a release form? I must remember that the next time I see an RTE outside broadcast on Grafton Street:D

ScumLord

yermandan wrote: »

Excellent example of whats really wrong with society these days. 2 tools out tooling eachother

It's just an argument, they happen and mean nothing. It can be two people having a bad day that cross paths, each looking for argument just to vent and karma brings them together. They both strut off thinking they've fought injustice.

Say it Aint So

Love it when the guy in the car just behind her says "good on you, man" as the cyclist is moving off at the end

cassid

I went up a bit of Dorset street in Dublin today at 4.30pm, the traffic was awful.

It's scary how many really bad drivers there are on the road. Buses/cars blocking yellow boxes, breaking lights, no indicators, turning lanes used for whatever you fancy- straight or turning, people stopping their cars in the middle of the road and a bus lane free for all. One guy nearly drove inside the side of my car, I beeped him and he told me to f**k off , when he was in the wrong. Despite being a female and on my own I had no issue returning the f**k off and a few more words.

In all my years of driving, I never seen so many bad drivers all together in one short space of time.

MadsL

I think God is calling this woman to open a restaurant bakery. Her name might be Amy.

My name is URL

zenno wrote: »

Now that's a childish comment, imo.

That woman should not have blocked his right of passage.

She was driving poorly, not blocking the Black Gate of Mordor.

There was no need for him to lose the head to such an extent.

Mountain out of a molehill if ever there was such a thing. The fact this has gone viral around the world is depressing and shines us all in a bad light... not just the fools in the video.

Claregirl

She's completely in the wrong but his reaction shows what an utter dick he is.

I'm looking forward to the video where the motorist batters the sh*te out of him with the car door and the camera needs to be surgically removed. Only a matter of time.....

B.A._Baracus

returnNull wrote: »

more sh1te in your post.

You don't need permission to film anyone in a public place and the owner of that film can do what he wants with it.Also the video doesnt libel or defame the silly bint so not sure what she could sue over.

As someone said earlier,
how come he doesnt show his own face or say he real name on his channel. I mean he has no issue with filming others and uploading...