Cyclist assaulted

Dermot Illogical

nelbot wrote: »

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

True. I usually write off a car or two when I go for a spin around Bellewstown of a summer eve.

nelbot

Jawgap wrote: »

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

I mean dangerous as in potential for serious injury. Of course there are far less accidents outside the city, the ratio of cyclists to motorists is minute in comparison. I was a cycle courier in Dublin for a number of years, the city so dangerous for cyclists. I wouldn't have the nerve to do it now. I walk, drive and cycle, there is no question that cyclists are given the least consideration of any category.
I have been knocked off the bike on numerous occasions while obeying the rules of the road by both pedestrians and motorists, buses are the worst of all, they just pull in on top of you all the time. Drivers turning left often ignore cyclists, pedestrians step onto the road in front of them all the time, everyone ignores the cycle lanes. Traffic lights have no green lights for bicycles that allow them to start before other traffic. This alone makes traffic lights dangerous especially when larger vehicles are stopped at the lights.
While I agree there are lots of cyclists causing problems and creating danger, there will never be any middle ground until the anti-cyclist brigade start to accept there are very real and very dangerous grievances suffered by cyclists all the time.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

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.

You would think that, then you travel to other countries and think "good god, Ireland is incredibly clean".

Mixing padestrians and cyclists works elsewhere, it just requires education.

Chiparus

He won't get a conviction, might make it difficult for work.

Chuchote

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.

"A few slaps"? Not anything any civilised person does.

And when we're talking about antisocial behaviour, we're not necessarily talking about taking a hop on to the pavement in an area that I wouldn't personally call "city centre", a seldom-used street around the corner from the NAMA offices with the woman crawling up the wall.

Paschal Donohoe, by the way, excluded cycling on the pavement from his recent blitz of fines for cycling offences, on the basis that it would stop parents from cycling to school with kids. I disagree with the Minister — the correct solution is to provide protected cycle lanes where parents can cycle safely with small children. But that's what the Minister said:

http:// www. independent.ie /irish-news/politics/cyclists-who-use-footpaths-will-not-be-fined-31342974.html

ted1 wrote: »

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.

Did I read that there were vans blocking the street? I'd normally get off and walk up a blocked street, but probably not Clanwilliam Terrace, which is usually an empty echoing canyon; I'd cycle slowly along the path there, and would be a little surprised to provided with any 'dental injuries' or strangling with my helmet strap in response for doing so.

Jawgap

nelbot wrote: »

I mean dangerous as in potential for serious injury. Of course there are far less accidents outside the city, the ratio of cyclists to motorists is minute in comparison. I was a cycle courier in Dublin for a number of years, the city so dangerous for cyclists. I wouldn't have the nerve to do it now. I walk, drive and cycle, there is no question that cyclists are given the least consideration of any category.
I have been knocked off the bike on numerous occasions while obeying the rules of the road by both pedestrians and motorists, buses are the worst of all, they just pull in on top of you all the time. Drivers turning left often ignore cyclists, pedestrians step onto the road in front of them all the time, everyone ignores the cycle lanes. Traffic lights have no green lights for bicycles that allow them to start before other traffic. This alone makes traffic lights dangerous especially when larger vehicles are stopped at the lights.
While I agree there are lots of cyclists causing problems and creating danger, there will never be any middle ground until the anti-cyclist brigade start to accept there are very real and very dangerous grievances suffered by cyclists all the time.

As I said, 'your mileage may vary' - I cycle a fair bit with a commute that takes in the full range of roads - from rural lanes, R and N road to inside the M50 - I don't find it dangerous or especially hazardous.

I also have no idea who the 'anti-cyclist brigade' are. Do you have a head office address for them so these grievances I'm supposed to have suffered can be registered?

Weepsie

The defendant works for an organisation that have to ensure that Ireland has at least 90 days oil reserves in its stocks. You'd think he'd be applauding anyone cycling and making his target a little smaller

delta_bravo

Was quite saddening to see the general discussion tone on Facebook about this incident ignored the assault and just was a collection of anti cyclist ranting. I presume the cyclist will now pursue a civil suit against this thug and hopefully he cleans him out

Darkglasses

delta_bravo wrote: »

Was quite saddening to see the general discussion tone on Facebook about this incident ignored the assault and just was a collection of anti cyclist ranting. I presume the cyclist will now pursue a civil suit against this thug and hopefully he cleans him out

It's strange how a cyclist being involved completely blinds people isn't it. "He shouldn't have assaulted him BUT...."

OleRodrigo

An additional fine for awful eyewear would have been appropriate.

And how does one become a senior executive whilst being fond of dishing out random slaps ?

Calahonda52

What is the law re cycling on the footpath anyway?

ThisRegard

Calahonda52 wrote: »

What is the law re cycling on the footpath anyway?

A beating apparently, as long as the assailant can afford it. It's the city equivalent of those asshole big game hunters.

Tenzor07

Whatever about anything else.. just for some contrast..

A woman was awarded €55,000 for slipping on a patch of yogurt in Tesco..
A guy punches and strangles someone on the street and the victim gets €3,930


Irish justice for ya! :mad:

Jawgap

Calahonda52 wrote: »

What is the law re cycling on the footpath anyway?

It's an offence punishable by a good slapping which may or may not include a headlock fixed charge penalty of €40 or a trip to the district court.

Darkglasses

Calahonda52 wrote: »

What is the law re cycling on the footpath anyway?

It's illegal, but it wasn't added onto the list of offenses which you will get a FPN for.

We have a good thread on that kind of thing here - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=88726862

Hrududu

I cycle this route every day and every morning there will be cyclists that will go on the path, presumably to avoid the cobbles. I can understand people being pissed off at cyclists on the path. But this wasn't just a shove, he punched, kicked and strangled the guy. The judge pointed out that he had seen the cyclist coming and had time to get out of the way. So it's not like the cyclist caught him on the hop and he reacted instinctively.

I don't like the idea that you can pay a little money and walk away from something like that. Your average person doesn't react with that level of violence to something so small. I doubt it's the first or last time yer man will lose the head and hurt someone

Eamonnator

Jawgap wrote: »

It's an offence punishable by a good slapping which may or may not include a headlock fixed charge penalty of €40 or a trip to the district court.

Sounds good, but cycling on a footpath isn't included in the the fixed charge penalty scheme.
Back to a good slapping so, I'm afraid.

Weepsie

Some eejit on broadsheet seems to be convinced it's not illegal to cycle on foothpath. S/he doesn't seem to want to listen to reason

Jawgap

Eamonnator wrote: »

Sounds good, but cycling on a footpath isn't included in the the fixed charge penalty scheme.
Back to a good slapping so, I'm afraid.

True, but maybe "driving a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration"?

Failing that, a simple bitch slap, without the attempted strangulation should be sufficient

Eamonnator

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Just a little bit of fisticuffs i'm sure. There are cyclists that go around Dublin like it is Saigon. The behaviour of a lot of them shows a total disregard for everyone around them. Inevitable that someone will snap once in a while. Maybe the man was barged off the path once too often. Understandable really.

Understandable, perhaps, if the culprit was barged off the path once too often by the victim in this case. Is there any evidence, that this is what happened in this instance??

magicbastarder

Weepsie wrote: »

Some eejit on broadsheet

oddly enough for broadsheet, it didn't turn into the usual 'cyclists are assholes' free for all.
yer man behind broadsheet must love it when there's something about cycling in the news. utter clickbait for them.

Tony EH

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

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

You'd want to have some small mind on you to try and justify an assault because you have a mild irritation about something.

:rolleyes:

Unknown Soldier

magicbastarder wrote: »

oddly enough for broadsheet,

They went down the toilet 12 months ago.

I wouldn't worry about them.

delta_bravo

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Whatever about anything else.. just for some contrast..

A woman was awarded €55,000 for slipping on a patch of yogurt in Tesco..
A guy punches and strangles someone on the street and the victim gets €3,930


Irish justice for ya! :mad:

That woman took a civil case. This was a criminal case. The victim can now take a civil case against the attacker separately which I'm sure he will.

Darkglasses

delta_bravo wrote: »

That woman took a civil case. This was a criminal case. The victim can now take a civil case against the attacker separately which I'm sure he will.

What makes you so sure?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=100292001&postcount=5

ThisRegard

Unknown Soldier wrote: »

They went down the toilet 12 months ago.

I wouldn't worry about them.

Off topic I know, but it really went downhill didn't it.

HivemindXX

Darkglasses wrote: »

It's strange how a cyclist being involved completely blinds people isn't it. "He shouldn't have assaulted him BUT...."

That's it exactly. The is the reason so many pitiful excuses for human beings comment they way they do here. I'd say they have crawled out from under their rocks, but to be honest this sort of scumbaggery is totally acceptable to enough people that they are not in the least bit ashamed.

If, instead of committing a serious assault on a cyclist, this person had found someone had blocked the footpath with their car and decided to give it some stripes with his keys I have no doubt the same people would be baying for blood. None of this "understandable", "probably just snapped", "I don't condone this but", "good enough for 'em" nonsense.

Did the happen when the road was closed off leaving only the footpath open? At that point I saw motorcyclists driving down that footpath. I always walked my bike, as anyone should, but it might have been less disruptive to cycle slowly since it was significantly more difficult to get past someone walking a bike and it was extremely busy in the evening around 6pm. There was a bin in the middle making it very difficult to get by at all in fact. The road was closed because the people building Dennis O'Brien's penthouse office needed somewhere to store their stuff. They could have left an additional 2m of space on the road very easily and put up a covered walkway like lots of building sites do if falling debris was judged to be a risk, which I very much doubt it was.

alaimacerc

delta_bravo wrote: »

That woman took a civil case. This was a criminal case. The victim can now take a civil case against the attacker separately which I'm sure he will.

My guess is that if he were of the inclination -- not to mention the means -- to do that, he'd have refused the offered compensation in this case, seen the perp formally convicted, and then taken the civil case.

I don't doubt the assurances here that such a case is still in theory possible, but I'm sure if he were to do so, the respondent would give it full-bore whingeing. "No criminal conviction was obtained in this case", "compensation already given", "plaintiff had earlier indicated contentment at the remedy offered", yadda-yadda.

Pinch Flat

I don't condone cycling on the path, but can see where it might happen. For example, I'd rather see school kids cycling on the paths around me rather than being ferried in suv's. As for adults, the roads have become intimidating so again can see where some would opt for the path, particularly on narrow / busy roads.

In saying that, as long as the cyclist doesn't act the d!ck and acts civil and the pedestrian likewise, occurrences usually pass off without incident.

alaimacerc

Darkglasses wrote: »

It's strange how a cyclist being involved completely blinds people isn't it. "He shouldn't have assaulted him BUT...."

No, of course not! I'm sure they say similar things in corresponding cases. "He shouldn't have dragged that motorist out of his car, barged him to the ground, semi-strangulated him, and kneed him causing severe dental damage... but it's the only language these scum understand!"