Cyclist assaulted

fryup

its thuggish bully boy behaviour ..if he didn't do it to the cyclist he would have done it to someone else, its obvious he's got anger management issues

Chuchote

Pinch Flat wrote: »

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.

Yeah, but that's not fair to old people who are often afraid of falling already, and get really terrified by adults cycling on paths, and even by kids cycling fast.

We really need proper protected bike paths in Dublin (and other cities and towns), with a pavement outside the cyclists.

It's not only good for cyclists, it's also good for the Corpo and ESB and gas workers who take their lives in their hands working on manholes; if the manholes are in that strip of pavement it's good for them. And if the drains are in alcoves recessed into those pavements, it's good for cyclists.

tomasrojo

It's definitely possible to cycle on the footpath without causing any bother to anyone; plenty of people do cause bother by cycling on the footpath inconsiderately or gratuitously. I've no idea if there was something objectionable about the way this particular man was cycling, but the guilty party's reaction was insanely disproportionate to even the most boorish behaviour. Knocking him to the ground was bad enough, but trying to strangle him?!

alaimacerc

Chuchote wrote: »

Yeah, but that's not fair to old people who are often afraid of falling already, and get really terrified by adults cycling on paths, and even by kids cycling fast.

I'm not quite in the old and infirm category myself just yet (though tell it to my throbbing leg veins), but I'd say that an adult cycling cautiously and way-yieldingly at walking speed isn't going to be especially intimidating. Compared to, I dunno say a flying wedge of runners, which are of course perfectly legal on the pavement...

We really need proper protected bike paths in Dublin (and other cities and towns), with a pavement outside the cyclists.

It's not only good for cyclists, it's also good for the Corpo and ESB and gas workers who take their lives in their hands working on manholes; if the manholes are in that strip of pavement it's good for them. And if the drains are in alcoves recessed into those pavements, it's good for cyclists.

Sure, but that's not going to happen especially fast, and never on every single road...

Chuchote

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not quite in the old and infirm category myself just yet (though tell it to my throbbing leg veins), but I'd say that an adult cycling cautiously and way-yieldingly at walking speed isn't going to be especially intimidating.

Absolutely not! But a culture seems to have grown up where *some* young lads race along on the pavement, and they're scary for the infirm.

sunny2004

Was there a change in the law ? I'm assumed that strangling cyclists was ok ?

Darkglasses

Haven't encountered young whippersnappers cycling too fast along a pavement with reckless abandon ever myself. In my experience, it's people of anywhere between 25-45 who just don't know any better on dublin bikes who are the most awkward customers on footpaths.

Chuchote

Darkglasses wrote: »

Haven't encountered young whippersnappers cycling too fast along a pavement with reckless abandon ever myself. In my experience, it's people of anywhere between 25-45 who just don't know any better on dublin bikes who are the most awkward customers on footpaths.

Our viewpoint on how young you should be to enter the whippersnapper group may differ

2RockMountain

brianomc wrote: »

In this case the cyclist said he'd be be happy to get his teeth paid for and move on. So you can't really blame the judge on this one. If the victim doesn't want to press charges that's pretty much the end of it. The judge went over the victims wishes with the donation to the poor box.

I can't see myself being so forgiving if it happened me.

It's a criminal case. The victim doesn't have control over whether charges are pressed or not. That's a decision for the DPP.

OleRodrigo wrote: »

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

It goes with the territory, or the mindset at least.

Chuchote

People under immense pressure for one reason or another can suddenly snap and totally lose control, and do things they wouldn't normally do, though. If this is a once-off, and will never happen again, no reason for the guy to end up with a criminal conviction.

Rage is the unloaded gun we should not unknowingly carry…

Kaisr Sose

sunny2004 wrote: »

Was there a change in the law ? I'm assumed that strangling cyclists was ok ?

If you provide the SI / Law that you think was changed - some very obliging cyclist will look it up for you. It's always good to be aware of what the law allows and what is accetpable behaviour in civilised society.

Pinch Flat

sunny2004 wrote: »

Was there a change in the law ? I'm assumed that strangling cyclists was ok ?

Not sure about that one. Maybe I should have beaten the crap out of both drivers who knocked me off my bike? Or perhaps we can all act civilly towards each other. I prefer the latter.

Shep_Dog

Chuchote wrote: »

People under immense pressure for one reason or another can suddenly snap and totally lose control, and do things they wouldn't normally do, though. If this is a once-off, and will never happen again, no reason for the guy to end up with a criminal conviction.

There was no mention in the reports of any psychological reports, so, we don't know if this guy still poses a risk to the public.

With a criminal conviction, the assailant would have been subject to the probation act and could be subjected to supervision ensuring that he was taking steps to address his behavioural problem.

Chiparus

Chuchote wrote: »

People under immense pressure for one reason or another can suddenly snap and totally lose control, and do things they wouldn't normally do, though. If this is a once-off, and will never happen again, no reason for the guy to end up with a criminal conviction.

Rage is the unloaded gun we should not unknowingly carry…

He committed a crime?

Subcomandante Marcos

Chiparus wrote: »

He committed a crime?

A violent crime that was unprovoked at that.

Chiparus

I see has has taken down his linkedin page,

galwaycyclist

Darkglasses wrote: »

Haven't encountered young whippersnappers cycling too fast along a pavement with reckless abandon ever myself. In my experience, it's people of anywhere between 25-45 who just don't know any better on dublin bikes who are the most awkward customers on footpaths.

I have and I make it personal policy to challenge adult males on bikes on city centre footpaths - which in Galway can be quite narrow. I have seen roadies using footpaths because they couldn't be bothered waiting for traffic to start moving.

On one occasion I challenged a guy on a mountain bike near the court house where the path is ridiculously narrow for that kind of thing - he started swinging the bike around like a weapon caught me on the shoulder.

The fundamental problem I believe is the cultural view that Irish pedestrians should be subordinate to everyone else. So there is apparently some kind of "right" for
other road users to consume pedestrian space for cars, vans, skips, bikes and whatever else.

People on foot need to stop taking that treatment. Ultimately the problem is the lack of an effective police force - I believe the Garda Siochana are very very much part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

When you have law but a police force that is not fit for purpose it is inevitable that some people will try assert their view of the law - sometimes in a manner that itself is unlawful.

Ultimately a lot of footpath cycling happens in response to the abject failure of the Garda Siochana to police traffic speeds. So you have unlawful behaviour in one group that is driven by state toleration of, and connivance in, unlawful behaviour by another group.

Chiparus

I see that they legalized cycling on the footpath in Australia.
Should be legal here too.

Chuchote

Chiparus wrote: »

I see that they legalized cycling on the footpath in Australia.
Should be legal here too.

Or just build separated cycle tracks with pavement outside them.

In her last year of life, my aged mother-in-law used to be petrified of men racing along the pavements near the old people's housing in Ranelagh. Some of the people in those flats wouldn't go out at all. The fear of a fall is a major fear for old people, because if you come down on your hip or knee or arm it's more likely to break, and your resilience for recovery is less.

Ar scaith a chéile a maireann na daoine…

Tony EH

Pedestrians just end up walking in the cycle path section then.

The Phoenix Park has paths separated for pedestrians and cyclists and it's a joke.

galwaycyclist

Chiparus wrote: »

I see that they legalized cycling on the footpath in Australia.
Should be legal here too.

Daft.

Most collisions between cars and bikes happen at junctions. If you try to cycle on footpaths at normal cycling speeds you multiply your chance of colliding with a car at each junction.

One of the reasons for challenging footpath cycling is for the safety of the cyclists doing it.

There is no point legalising footpath cycling unless you are prepared to;

1. Be honest about the risks
2. Be very specific about how people should cycle on footpaths
3. Be specific about the rights of pedestrians.
4. Provide the necessary arrangements to police all that

edit: Not forgetting of course that the risk conflict also increases at every driveway and property entrance.

Kaisr Sose

Chiparus wrote: »

I see that they legalized cycling on the footpath in Australia.
Should be legal here too.

There is not a week goes by that I don't see cars driving on pavements - often at Lambs Cross to avoid the red light. Maybe that should be legalised too so as to avoid tailbacks at the junction.
While we are at it, why not allow cars access to pedestrian zones?

Chiparus

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Daft.

Most collisions between cars and bikes happen at junctions. If you try to cycle on footpaths at normal cycling speeds you multiply your chance of colliding with a car at each junction.

One of the reasons for challenging footpath cycling is for the safety of the cyclists doing it.

There is no point legalising footpath cycling unless you are prepared to;

1. Be honest about the risks
2. Be very specific about how people should cycle on footpaths
3. Be specific about the rights of pedestrians.
4. Provide the necessary arrangements to police all that

edit: Not forgetting of course that the risk conflict also increases at every driveway and property entrance.

Its not for cyclists , cycling at normal speeds , it would be particularly applicable for elderly cyclists.

Regularly see the post person cycle safely on the footpath - no issues

Perhaps we should look to Japan?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/cyclist-laws-adelaide-tolerance-on-footpaths-japan-experience/6888366

tomasrojo

I read recently that they've rescinded the right to cycle on the footpath in Japan. Or else they've stopped turning a blind eye to it; not sure which.

alaimacerc

The distinction between cycling at 25kph on a "normal" footpath and one with a bit of white paint isn't that profound, especially in a busy area. For all that the former is forbidden, and the latter is compulsory (which I didn't realize until recently). You'd want to exercise a little bit of common sense and caution either way...

tomasrojo

It's not compulsory to use cycle tracks anymore. It was until a few years back. 1997-2014, I think.

tomasrojo

If there's a footpath with no pedestrians on it and good sight lines, I don't see any problem with using it as a shortcut, or to avoid a hazardous route, provided you don't cycle at any more than jogging pace, or less, and dismount if a pedestrian comes along.

Obviously, there are plenty of people who make pedestrians' lives a misery, and I have no truck with these people. Even people who aren't doing anything dangerous do preposterous things like ringing a bell to get pedestrians to step aside ... on the footpath that legally they alone are entitled to use .

Tony EH

If someone is cycling at a reasonable pace on a path that isn't thronged with people, then there's no issue, as far as I'm concerned as they're no more "dangerous" than someone with a pram.

It's the gobshites that fly down the path like there's no tomorrow, weaving in an out of bodies that need to cop on and they are a danger, especially to the elderly.

That being said, I very rarely see that type of fool and I don't think it does happen that often TBH. Sure, people will say they see it every day etc, but I don't and I go down some pretty shitty roads on my commute, like Beaver Row. Sometimes, I'll see cyclist use a path there. But, there's good reason to IMO. But, I've never seen anyone do it recklessly.

At the end of the day, though, some people are just going their knickers in a twist about this, because they just do.

But, frankly, that energy is much more worthy of a better cause.

alaimacerc

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's not compulsory to use cycle tracks anymore. It was until a few years back. 1997-2014, I think.

You're certainly correct about the '97 -- that's the legislation I stumbled across recently. So apparently I should just have stayed ignorant of that a little longer, having known nothing about it for its entire actual lifetime!

galwaycyclist

Chiparus wrote: »

Its not for cyclists , cycling at normal speeds , it would be particularly applicable for elderly cyclists.

Regularly see the post person cycle safely on the footpath - no issues

Perhaps we should look to Japan?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-27/cyclist-laws-adelaide-tolerance-on-footpaths-japan-experience/6888366

Again we back to the "how" you cycle rather than just making it legal to cycle on a footpath.

Japanese culture including road culture is fundamentally different to ours. They also have a police force that upholds the law.

We don't