cycling on a pedestrian bridge

RecordStraight

RecordStraight wrote: »

How are you going to stop them without touching them? You're going to stop a 7-year-old kid cycling to school by grabbing her bike, or her, or by blocking her way?

What a man.

Any chance you will answer the question, Tipparetops?

tipparetops

K4t wrote: »

This is the tipparetops thread though, right?

are you purposely derailing this thread.

tipparetops

RecordStraight wrote: »

Any chance you will answer the question, Tipparetops?

waiting for mods to answer that question first

RecordStraight

tipparetops wrote: »

waiting for mods to answer that question first

Running to the mods when it's pointed out to you that you've basically said you'll illegally detain small children going about their play.

Nice move.

tipparetops

RecordStraight wrote: »

Running to the mods when it's pointed out to you that you've basically said you'll illegally detain small children going about their play.

Nice move.

dont worry, i do not expect any actions against you, you are on the right side of the debate.

Grandpa Hassan

tipparetops wrote: »

if you do not want to read it, click onto another thread.
this is not the cycling forum.

I didn't say I didn't want to read it. I find it kind of amusing

RecordStraight

tipparetops wrote: »

dont worry, i do not expect any actions against you, you are on the right side of the debate.

Also because you said that you would stop a small child legally or illegally cycling on a footpath. In your own words.

What a guy.

tipparetops

RecordStraight wrote: »

Also because you said that you would stop a small child legally or illegally cycling on a footpath. In your own words.

What a guy.

Your post towards me were a disgrace, now we wait.
We wait for a hero, a guardian of free thought and decency.

RecordStraight

tipparetops wrote: »

Your post towards me were a disgrace, now we wait.

The posts where I asked you to justify what you said?

Is it a disgrace to ask someone whether they just claimed they would assault or illegally detain a child, because they just said they would?

Play the victim now, but your post is there for all to see.

tipparetops

RecordStraight wrote: »

The posts where I asked you to justify what you said?

Is it a disgrace to ask someone whether they just claimed they would assault or illegally detain a child, because they just said they would?

Play the victim now, but your post is there for all to see.

Your post is there for all to see, an outrageous post that if not challenged raises alot of questions and means anything goes.

You did not ask what I meant by my post, you automatically reproached me for touching a child, mentioning I was a man to further muddy the waters.

RecordStraight

tipparetops wrote: »

You did not ask what I meant by my post, you automatically reproached me for touching a child, mentioning I was a man to further muddy the waters.

So how would you stop a child on a bike, as you said you would?

Play the victim card again? Ask a mod?

tipparetops

RecordStraight wrote: »

So how would you stop a child on a bike, as you said you would?

Play the victim card again? Ask a mod?

I put my hand up, stand in front of them and point to the road.
Have done it a few times, never get out of the way for any cyclist.
young or old.
the young always move, I am a big guy.
And if the adults cyclists want to dance, we dance.

dubscottie

RainyDay wrote: »

Yes, that is funny. And yet, when you look at road injury statistics, you see that motorists kill 200+ people each year while cyclists kill zero. There must be some very unobservant motorists out there, if they don't notice the misbehaving motorists.

So 200+ motorists have been prosecuted for death by dangerous driving then??

Proof??

Are all cyclists road traffic collision experts? Have you all attended the inquests into peoples deaths?

How the hell do you know how each and every road death happened?

Get the boat..

RainyDay wrote: »

Sure - here's the solid statistic:

People killed by cyclists in Ireland in the last ten years: 0
People killed by cars and trucks in Ireland in the last ten years: 3,000+

Again, any proof for your figures??

I can think of 2 cases where cyclists have caused death on the roads in the last 10 years... Not prosecuted under Road Traffic law

The Road Traffic Act applies to cyclists as much as any other road user. But I forgot.. The motorist is always in the wrong and the cyclist, being the law abiding and RTA experts they are, are always right:rolleyes:

Stop trying to deflect the topic with whataboutery.

RecordStraight

tipparetops wrote: »

I put my hand up, stand in front of them and point to the road.

So you would detain a small child on a bike? Or force them onto a road they clearly don't want to be on, for - say - safety reasons?

OK.

CramCycle

tipparetops wrote: »

I put my hand up, stand in front of them and point to the road.
Have done it a few times, never get out of the way for any cyclist.
young or old.
the young always move, I am a big guy.
And if the adults cyclists want to dance, we dance.

And if the young child walks around you?

tipparetops

RecordStraight wrote: »

So you would detain a small child on a bike? Or force them onto a road they clearly don't want to be on, for - say - safety reasons?

OK.

how is that detaining them, pure nonsense. You belittled yourself and your family by your posts above.

tipparetops

CramCycle wrote: »

And if the young child walks around you?

here we go, more nonsense. footpaths are for pedestrians not cyclists.
Its not my job to raise other peoples children.

RecordStraight

tipparetops wrote: »

how is that detaining them, pure nonsense. You belittled yourself and your family by your posts above.

I don't think belittling means what you think it means.

Let me put it like this: if you stood in the way of my little girl and forced her to cycle onto a road she is scared of, I'd have you up on charges.

dubscottie

RecordStraight wrote: »

I don't think belittling means what you think it means.

Let me put it like this: if you stood in the way of my little girl and forced her to cycle onto a road she is scared of, I'd have you up on charges.

What charges? Again a cyclist thinking they can do what they want and other people have to entertain them..

RecordStraight

dubscottie wrote: »

What charges? Again a cyclist thinking they can do what they want and other people have to entertain them..

Assault for a start.

tipparetops

RecordStraight wrote: »

I don't think belittling means what you think it means.

Let me put it like this: if you stood in the way of my little girl and forced her to cycle onto a road she is scared of, I'd have you up on charges.

name these magical charges.
your making this very personal, this is the dinternet, your child could be a cat.

dubscottie

RecordStraight wrote: »

Assault for a start.

You need to look up the definition of assault then.. www.statute.ie

Timberrrrrrrr

tipparetops wrote: »

I put my hand up, stand in front of them and point to the road.
Have done it a few times, never get out of the way for any cyclist.
young or old.
the young always move, I am a big guy.
And if the adults cyclists want to dance, we dance.

I walk with my son (3 years old) to the shop, he brings his bike and cycles on the pavement, Are you saying he should be forced onto the road?

RecordStraight

dubscottie wrote: »

You need to look up the definition of assault then.. www.statute.ie

One of us does:

In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. Because assault requires intent, it is considered an intentional tort, as opposed to a tort of negligence. Actual ability to carry out the apprehended contact is not necessary. In Criminal Law an assault is defined as an attempt to commit battery, requiring the specific intent to cause physical injury.[1]

As distinguished from battery, assault need not involve actual contact; it only needs intent and the resulting apprehension. However, assault requires more than words alone. For example, wielding a knife while shouting threats could be construed as assault if an apprehension was created. A battery can occur without a preceding assault, such as if a person is struck in the back of the head. Fear is not required, only anticipation of subsequent battery.

dubscottie

RecordStraight wrote: »

One of us does:

So how would standing firm on the pavement and forcing a kid on a bike to go on the road be assault?

Should the parents get charged with reckless endangerment for forcing us pedestrians to walk on the road to allow kids on bikes to use the pavement?

tipparetops

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I walk with my son (3 years old) to the shop, he brings his bike and cycles on the pavement, Are you saying he should be forced onto the road?

Depends, do you let them cycle into people.
If answer is No, there is your answer.
If the answer is yes, get some parenting lessons.

RecordStraight

dubscottie wrote: »

So how would standing firm on the pavement and forcing a kid on a bike to go on the road be assault?

As long as you don't intentionally obstruct the child, you're probably ok. If you force the child onto a busy road, as Tiparretops says he would, then you are entering very dodgy territory. You are scaring the child into doing something they do not want to do - dice with traffic - because the child is afraid of what you will do to them otherwise. That is an assault.

dubscottie wrote: »

Should be with reckless endangerment the parents are charged with, forcing us pedestrians to walk on the road to allow kids on bikes to use the pavement..

As a pedestrian, I'm delighted to share the footpaths with small kids cycling to school etc. - staying healthy and active, not clogging up the road with more cars etc. etc.

RecordStraight

tipparetops wrote: »

Depends, do you let them cycle into people.
If answer is No, there is your answer.

That's a welcome change from this:

tipparetops wrote: »

As for children legally or illegally cycling on footpaths, they'll stop when they come to me.

tipparetops

RecordStraight wrote: »

As long as you don't intentionally obstruct the child, you're probably ok. If you force the child onto a busy road, as Tiparretops says he would, then you are entering very dodgy territory. You are scaring the child into doing something they do not want to do - dice with traffic - because the child is afraid of what you will do to them otherwise. That is an assault.

As a pedestrian, I'm delighted to share the footpaths with small kids cycling to school etc. - staying healthy and active, not clogging up the road with more cars etc. etc.

All lies.
How is it assault. The child is breaking the law.
if a child needs to be on a footpath, they should walk.
even better exercise.

Timberrrrrrrr

tipparetops wrote: »

Depends, do you let them cycle into people.
If answer is No, there is your answer.
If the answer is yes, get some parenting lessons.

Of course not but you claimed you stood in front of kids forcing them onto the road, if they are not cycling into people what gives you the right to force them onto the road?

jjpep

tipparetops wrote: »

I put my hand up, stand in front of them and point to the road.
Have done it a few times, never get out of the way for any cyclist.
young or old.
the young always move, I am a big guy.
And if the adults cyclists want to dance, we dance.

Greatest internet hard man èver!!

Unless you literally mean dance, like a tango or waltz. In which case you sir are even more awesome!!

RecordStraight

tipparetops wrote: »

All lies.

Lol.

You'd better get editing the law then.

tipparetops wrote: »

How is it assault. The child is breaking the law.

So it's impossible to assault someone if they are breaking the law? If a guy in my office is smoking, I can punch him in the face and it's not an assault?

tipparetops wrote: »

if a child needs to be on a footpath, they should walk.
even better exercise.

I'm glad I don't live in your world.

tipparetops

RecordStraight wrote: »

That's a welcome change from this:

there is no change in my views.
meeting a 3 year old on a tricycle with their parents is like meeting a 3 year old in a pram with their parents.

What cyclists always forget is the elderly. I once saw a young cyclist hit an elderly person on a footpath. Only God could have stopped me that day.

dubscottie

RecordStraight wrote: »

As a pedestrian, I'm delighted to share the footpaths with small kids cycling to school etc. - staying healthy and active, not clogging up the road with more cars etc. etc.

So that's fine then.. Who is going to pay my medical bills when being hit by 10 of these "little darlings on bikes" feck my ankles/feet???

RecordStraight

dubscottie wrote: »

So that's fine then.. Who is going to pay my medical bills when being hit by 10 of these "little darlings on bikes" feck my ankles/feet???

I've never been hit on the foot or ankle by a child on a bike, and I've lived in a civilised country for nearly a decade...but perhaps some public liability insurance is in order? It would cost buttons for councils to provide seeing as accidents are so rare.

tipparetops

jjpep wrote: »

Greatest internet hard man èver!!

Unless you literally mean dance, like a tango or waltz. In which case you sir are even more awesome!!

hey record, sorry jjpeg, nice to see you posting. You only do it the odd time, when a friend needs a hand maybe.
:pac::pac::pac::pac:

Pinch Flat

tipparetops wrote: »

All lies.
How is it assault. The child is breaking the law.

Actually he / she isn't. An 8 year old is below the age of criminal responsibility. Unless you can post a link to a child that was prosecuted for cycling on a footpath?

tipparetops wrote: »

if a child needs to be on a footpath, they should walk. even better exercise.

Perhaps, I love to walk with my son. But asking him to walk a 14km round trip that we'd cycle is a tad unreasonable.

tipparetops

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Actually he / she isn't. An 8 year old is below the age of criminal responsibility. Unless you can post a link to a child that was prosecuted for cycling on a footpath?



Perhaps, I love to walk with my son. But asking him to walk a 14km round trip that we'd cycle is a tad unreasonable.

I was talking about my law.

Your son cycles 14km to work with you. Are you a teacher.

RecordStraight

tipparetops wrote: »

I was talking about my law.

Oh wait, I didn't know you had your own law.

You can ignore the stuff I posted about assault, that only works in the real world.

dubscottie

RecordStraight wrote: »

I've never been hit on the foot or ankle by a child on a bike, and I've lived in a civilised country for nearly a decade...but perhaps some public liability insurance is in order? It would cost buttons for councils to provide seeing as accidents are so rare.

You are lucky then. I happen to be going to/from work at the same time the schools go in/out.

Every fecking day.. Whack.

Timberrrrrrrr

tipparetops wrote: »

I was talking about my law.

Your son cycles 14km to work with you. Are you a teacher.

Sorry to tell you but your law means jack ****

RecordStraight

dubscottie wrote: »

You are lucky then. I happen to be going to/from work at the same time the schools go in/out.

Every fecking day.. Whack.

I have some old shin guards that I can sell you at a very reasonably mark-up?

tipparetops

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Sorry to tell you but your law means jack ****

more lies. i am the law.

Pinch Flat

tipparetops wrote: »

I was talking about my law.

LOL. Judge Dredd in the house.

tipparetops wrote: »

Your son cycles 14km to work with you.

Actually, almost - we've managed to get from our own house to Heuston Station. But we'll frequently cycle these distances around our area. You'd be surprised what an 8 year old can cover on a bike.

tipparetops wrote: »

Are you a teacher.

No, but I love the idea of three months off over the summer.

dubscottie

RecordStraight wrote: »

I have some old shin guards that I can sell you at a very reasonably mark-up?

Wont help my feet of ankles though? Are you saying that we should all wear protection so cyclists can go on the pavement?

I used to cycle in Scotland as a kid, and if you got caught riding a bike on the pavement anywhere other than in a housing estate by the police, you got it in the ear and taken home in the van if you gave any lip back. (this was in the late 80's-early 90's).

Need to do the same here.

Timberrrrrrrr

tipparetops wrote: »

more lies. i am the law.

Lol I don't care how big you are, you wouldn't step in front of my child if he was cycling to the shop on the pavement.

dubscottie

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Lol I don't care how big you are, you wouldn't step in front of my child if he was cycling to the shop on the pavement.

Why? what would you do?? Really.. The cyclist mentality is all coming out now..

Pinch Flat

dubscottie wrote: »

Need to do the same here.

They can't. A child of the ages discussed here (7 or 8) is below the age of criminal responsibility. So they can't be prosecuted.

Spook_ie

RecordStraight wrote: »

I've never been hit on the foot or ankle by a child on a bike, and I've lived in a civilised country for nearly a decade...but perhaps some public liability insurance is in order? It would cost buttons for councils to provide seeing as accidents are so rare.

OMG Something else to be provided for free to cyclists, unbelievable, do you think there's anything that cyclists should bear the cost of?

Timberrrrrrrr

dubscottie wrote: »

Why? what would you do?? Really.. The cyclist mentality is all coming out now..

You do realise I am the OP right? A small child going to the shops is a HUGE difference to some bell end flying over a pedestrian bridge in the city center.