Cyclist assaulted

alaimacerc

buffalo wrote: »

I'm confused about how you got from €6.5k costs to 'no problem'.

If you assault someone causing 4K of medical expenses, then total "costs" of 6.5k, no jail time, and no criminal record is a bargain, frankly.

endacl

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

He got what he deserved. Cyclists in Dublin are arrogant, even anti-social some of them. They deserve some comeuppance.

Well. That's me told. I'm arrogant.

magicbastarder

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

He got what he deserved. Cyclists in Dublin are arrogant, even anti-social some of them. They deserve some comeuppance.

this post is arrogant and antisocial. where does that leave us?

Jawgap

endacl wrote: »

Well. That's me told. I'm arrogant.

Thankfully, as someone who cycles a fair bit in Meath, I'm happy to report that outside the Pale arrogance is not a problem among cyclists......

alaimacerc

ebbsy wrote: »

+1

Uh-oh, we have another one.

What's the correct collective noun? I've seen the suggestions "trollop", "creche", "stench", and "actually", but what about an "embridgement"?

magicbastarder

interesting comments from the judge though.

Judge Walsh noted Corcoran first saw Mr Fitzgerald approaching on his bike when he was 20 feet away and said he could have stood back to let him by.

The judge accepted it can be annoying but said “we live in a congested city and sometimes needs must”.

usually the cyclist is criticised over an utterly trivial point, but the judge was relatively robust here in dismissing any flash point which caused the reaction.

brianomc

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

He got what he deserved. Cyclists in Dublin are arrogant, even anti-social some of them. They deserve some comeuppance.

Insert taxi drivers/white van man/car drivers/pedestrians/teenagers/junkies in place of cyclists. Have I left anybody out, not to worry, I'm heading out now to get my revenge on all the above. See you in court bitches!!!!!!

To sum that up, that's some generalisation you've got going on there.

endacl

alaimacerc wrote: »

Uh-oh, we have another one.

What's the correct collective noun? I've seen the suggestions "trollop", "creche", "stench", and "actually", but what about an "embridgement"?

A 'pointless'.

SteM

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

I wouldn't advise you to do that but depending on the situation it might be understandable. Happens every day in major cities. Someone gets sick of someone elses anti-social behaviour, snaps, a few slaps, nothing serious. A day in court. A fine or whatever. Everyone goes home.

If you go looking for trouble sometimes you'll find more than you bargained for, I wonder will this fella try it on again in the future. Plenty of couriers use this route, I'm guessing this lad didn't pick on one of those people, the outcome would have been different.

alaimacerc

Hunterbiker wrote: »

Not sure. There may be a case of compo but this would be a civil case. The case reported is a criminal one. As the victim appears to just want an end to things the judge has gone down the route of the poor box - this means no criminal record so the matter is fully closed subject to paying the money. Should he not pay up the conviction will be on file and likely a sentence would follow. He'd have to declare the conviction on forms / work / all sorts of stuff until it was spent.

It's somewhat unfortunate if victims of criminal assaults, especially if they're of limited means, are incentivised to "grin and bear it" to get some modest compensation, if it means the perps of fairly serious violence thereby get away with it.

Zillah

I think cyclists should be allowed on the footpath, but must always cede right of way to pedestrians. Right of way is the only thing that should ever really matter to be honest. In this case the cyclist was a jerk. He didn't deserve to be assaulted of course.

Personally I find the money end of it the most uncomfortable part. I know the victim said he just wanted his expenses paid for, which is fair enough, and makes this one of the less egregious examples, but what if the defendant was dirt poor? Does he go to prison because he doesn't have a few grand to spare?

Civil court exists to extract monetary recompense - criminal justice shouldn't allow people to trade money for punishment.

Zillah

endacl wrote: »

A 'pointless'.

Wretch. A wretch of trolls.

KathleenF

buffalo wrote: »

I'm confused about how you got from €6.5k costs to 'no problem'.

Seriously? He directly inflicted 4K of damage on his victim. He was ordered to pay 2.5k to the poor box. He's described as a senior businessman, so I'd imagine paying out €6.5k isn't a massive stretch for him. By doing that, he's avoided jail time AND a conviction. In terms of potential consequences for an unprovoked* violent assault, he's gotten away very lightly.


*To clarify - the cyclist was definitely in the wrong, but in no way deserved the beating he got.

galwaycyclist

alaimacerc wrote: »

"Disproportionate"? Y'think!? Cycling on the footpath carries a penalty of a small fine. Assault with bodily harm is an unlimited fine, or up to five years inside. The idea that one is occasion for the other is obscene, and "using the poor box" for such an offence is a travesty of justice.

And that is a problem for elderly people or people with small children adults cycling on footpaths is a serious threat.

In my view it should be equated in law with other forms of threatening behaviour.

I know of elderly ladies with osteoporosis in Galway city centre who feel threatened and trapped in their houses by the presence of adult males on bicycles on footpaths.

I feel it is a pity that more people don't stand up to these characters.

ted1

Zillah wrote: »

I think cyclists should be allowed on the footpath, but must always cede right of way to pedestrians. .

Kids yes, but I don't see why adults need to go on a path. I commute daily into the city centre and have never had to go on a path yet I see plenty that do. If something is blocking your way , go around it.

Chiparus

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Picture of the so called "Executive" during the assault:

whisky_galore

Zillah wrote: »

I think cyclists should be allowed on the footpath, but must always cede right of way to pedestrians. Right of way is the only thing that should ever really matter to be honest. In this case the cyclist was a jerk. He didn't deserve to be assaulted of course.

No, just no. It would be mayhem.

You think people would actually cede right of way in reality?
We don't do civic responsibility in this country, people here don't even pick up the sh*te from their own dog here.

Greenmachine

Clearly the guy assaulting they cyclist was bang out of order even though the cyclist should not have been on the path.

All too common here not only to see cyclist on paths or moderately congested pedestrian street but to see them throttling along weaving between people.
Been in other countries with much better dedicated cycle path networks running on one side of the path and cyclist there travel slower, conscious of the fact their cycle paths meet pedestrian crossing and that cyclist could be approaching in the opposite direction, not something you tend to see in Ireland.

Fian

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's somewhat unfortunate if victims of criminal assaults, especially if they're of limited means, are incentivised to "grin and bear it" to get some modest compensation, if it means the perps of fairly serious violence thereby get away with it.

This particular victim will not be precluded from bringing a civil case as well if he chooses to. The Irish times reports the costs going towards replacing his dentures, which suggests that the victim was already using dentures. Which in turn suggest he was not the most robust potential victim available to this assaulter.

Weepsie

Its repugnant that the offender will not have a criminal record. Socio economic means should not be used to buy anyone's right to a clean record.

At the very least a definitive term of a suspended sentence, community service (if we have such a thing), and a criminal conviction to remain on his record.

sconhome

alaimacerc wrote: »

Uh-oh, we have another one.

What's the correct collective noun? I've seen the suggestions "trollop", "creche", "stench", and "actually", but what about an "embridgement"?

I like a 'putrefaction' of Trolls from here:

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090109062218AA0he3o

Fian

Weepsie wrote: »

Its repugnant that the offender will not have a criminal record. Socio economic means should not be used to buy anyone's right to a clean record.

At the very least a definitive term of a suspended sentence, community service (if we have such a thing), and a criminal conviction to remain on his record.

I don't want to come across as supporting the assaulter in any way. However it is only fair to bear in mind that people of very minimal means also benefit from the probation act, with a minor contribution to the poor box or none at all if they can't afford it.

Probably more important in this case than the compensation paid was the fact that he is a 50 year old who has reached that age without any previous convictions. Most people are given one opportunity to avoid a conviction for a first offence that is out of character for them, unless it is a very serious offence.

magicbastarder

Fian wrote: »

This particular victim will not be precluded from bringing a civil case as well if he chooses to.

looks unlikely, given that he did not want it pursued too vigorously.

KathleenF

Fian wrote: »

I don't want to come across as supporting the assaulter in any way. However it is only fair to bear in mind that people of very minimal means also benefit from the probation act, with a minor contribution to the poor box or none at all if they can't afford it.

Probably more important in this case than the compensation paid was the fact that he is a 50 year old who has reached that age without any previous convictions. Most people are given one opportunity to avoid a conviction for a first offence that is out of character for them, unless it is a very serious offence.

I take your point, but would you not agree that it is a very serious offence?

Weepsie

Fian wrote: »

I don't want to come across as supporting the assaulter in any way. However it is only fair to bear in mind that people of very minimal means also benefit from the probation act, with a minor contribution to the poor box or none at all if they can't afford it.

Probably more important in this case than the compensation paid was the fact that he is a 50 year old who has reached that age without any previous convictions. Most people are given one opportunity to avoid a conviction for a first offence that is out of character for them, unless it is a very serious offence.

I'll accept I took the wrong view re socio economic means. I don't think anyone paying a fine and no more for such an offence should be enough.

What moves a person to think such behaviour is okay? It shouldn't matter of job prospects are affected, his reputation ruined. Its far too light a punishment

dermabrasion

This street is a disaster: one that Dublin planning engineers can be very, very, vey proud off:
1.It is the end of the grand canal cycle lane, so going south to north, you go down this street vice versa for people going south up the canal. It can be chaotic at rush hour
2. The cycle lane merges with the footpath anyway, abruptly. Cyclists are dumped onto a t-junction.
3. It is a cut-de-sac. Lots of taxis and vans doing 3-point turns after drop offs. The north side of the bridge are ware-house distribution businesses and an office tower, so lots of articulated trucks and vans parked all over the place or turning.
4. It is cobbled. I like the cobbles, but they are a disaster when wet. I think some of the novice commuters avoid the cobbles and take to the footpaths
5. There is an hour-glasseffect under the railway bridge where pedestrians mix with cyclists.

So, despite Garlic's trolling, this was inevitable due to poor design. It probably will not be the only incident along here. Works both ways. cyclist may thump taxi driver.

Zillah

whisky_galore wrote: »

No, just no. It would be mayhem.

You think people would actually cede right of way in reality?
We don't do civic responsibility in this country, people here don't even pick up the sh*te from their own dog here.

Yeah, probably. I meant more in a "when the road is blocked or made of bike-shattering cobbles" more than modus operandi.

nelbot

Jawgap wrote: »

Thankfully, as someone who cycles a fair bit in Meath, I'm happy to report that outside the Pale arrogance is not a problem among cyclists......

Lol, Meath is in the Pale, cyclists on country roads are actually even more dangerous than the ones in the city...

schemingbohemia

Fian wrote: »

This particular victim will not be precluded from bringing a civil case as well if he chooses to. The Irish times reports the costs going towards replacing his dentures, which suggests that the victim was already using dentures. Which in turn suggest he was not the most robust potential victim available to this assaulter.

I find this a very odd comment. Plenty of people wear "dentures" due to sports injuries to their mouths, not because they're not "robust"!

Jawgap

nelbot wrote: »

Lol, Meath is in the Pale, cyclists on country roads are actually even more dangerous than the ones in the city...

Historically speaking it certainly is, but pejoratively it is used to refer to Dublin

Depends on your definition of 'dangerous' - according to the RSA's data there are significantly more car -v- cyclist collisions in urban areas ( as you'd expect because of traffic densities) but the outcomes tend to be less severe, whereas in rural areas there are fewer collisions, but a greater proportion have severe outcomes - so you are more likely to be clipped in the city, but you stand a better chance of being able to walk away from it (or limp away cursing as the case may be).

Personally, I find neither class of road 'dangerous'........ymmv