Executive (50) tried to 'strangle' cyclist

The Moldy Gowl

4ensic15 wrote: »

What excuse did the cyclist offer for cycling on the footpath?

I agree but I know the road. It's all big cobblestone and wrecks the wheels. There was construction going on as well.

stimpson

RayM wrote: »

I didn't. I said you're looking quite silly. For all I know, you might - contrary to how you're coming across - be extremely smart and this thread is just an embarrassing blip. Or maybe you're just being deliberately obtuse.

You're just splitting hairs now. Even if I am being obtuse, there is no need for name calling in civil discourse.

You think it's acceptable to "do worse" than knocking somebody's teeth out for cycling on the pavement. You (rightly) point out that it's dangerous and can kill people. Speeding in a car is also dangerous (and kills lots of people). What punishment would you dish out to somebody who you happened to catch speeding? Would it also be worse than knocking their teeth out?

Again you are putting words in my mouth. I never suggested it was acceptable, or justified it in any way. I know it would help your argument if I did. But I didn't.

selastich2

4ensic15 wrote: »

What excuse did the cyclist offer for cycling on the footpath?

a van parked somewhere

Kermit.de.frog

gandalf wrote: »

So you would assault someone you didn't know because they were cycling on the footpath. I really hope you don't resolve all your issues in such a fashion :rolleyes:

No, just cyclists. I have a "thing" against cyclists and that "thing" is...

Kermit.de.frog

...is...

Kermit.de.frog

...i'm a MOTORIST!

RayM

stimpson wrote: »

Again you are putting words in my mouth. I never suggested it was acceptable, or justified it in any way. I know it would help your argument if I did. But I didn't.

Before calling people who cycle on the pavement "vermin", you said you "would have done worse". They're your words, not mine. Are speeding motorists also "vermin" (because they kill people too)? Would you dish out similar treatment to a speeding motorist?

I don't know why you're struggling so much with this.

RobbieTheRobber

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

...i'm a MOTORIST!

That a strange thing to use as a defining feature.

I would say a much better description for you is keyboard warrior.

Blatter

Outrageous that he's been offered the chance to buy his way out of a conviction. Committing such a serious assault over nothing more than a minor inconvenience would surely indicate that this guy is a real danger to the public. He deserves a suspended sentence and an order to pay the medical fees at the very least.

If a traveller/scumbag/working class person committed this act rather than a senior executive, I'd imagine the tone of some in this thread would be very different.

meeeeh

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

...i'm a MOTORIST!

There is no excuse for the guys actions and he got of extremely lightly (I didn't realize false teeth can be so cheap). But this bs about any very valid complaint about moronic behavior being some irrational hate of cyclists is ridiculous. Cycling on the footpaths is extremely dangerous, comparable to morons doing 100kmph on overtaking lane of motorway and texting at the same time. They are all where they shouldn't be and endangering others way more than couple of slaps would.

stimpson

RayM wrote: »

Before calling people who cycle on the pavement "vermin", you said you "would have done worse". They're your words, not mine. Are speeding motorists also "vermin" (because they kill people too)? Would you dish out similar treatment to a speeding motorist?

I don't know why you're struggling so much with this.

I don't see any justification there. You seem to be hanging on to the speeding motorist strawman like it proves something. And I already said that if they were speeding in the footpath then they should get similar treatment.

Now, if you'll excuse me. I've been drinking all afternoon and am losing the will to correct the spell checker on my phone and I fear this thread will decend even further into farce if I don't keep an eye on it. Goodnight.

SEPT 23 1989

He must be a very important man

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

TBF if I saw a cyclist riding a bike on a public footpath i'd be minded to him a dig too. There are cycle lanes, use them.

That area is notorious for cyclists using the footpath because of the cobbled stones on the road. pedestrians are fed up with them and near accidents are caused daily. While the actions of the pedestrian were way over the top and plain wrong, there's not a lot of pedestrians around that area who's hearts are bleeding for that cyclist.

4ensic15 wrote: »

What excuse did the cyclist offer for cycling on the footpath?

It didn't say but that area is all cobblestones on the road so it's very common for cyclists to go on the path to avoid them. They fly past entrances to offices and shops nearly knocking over the footpath pedestrians coming and going.

RayM

stimpson wrote: »

I don't see any justification there. You seem to be hanging on to the speeding motorist strawman like it proves something. And I already said that if they were speeding in the footpath then they should get similar treatment.

I don't know why you don't want to answer it. You either would or wouldn't assault somebody for driving a car too fast on a public road. I'm going to put my hands up right now and admit that I definitely wouldn't.

Wow, that was easy.

stimpson wrote: »

Now, if you'll excuse me. I've been drinking all afternoon and am losing the will to correct the spell checker on my phone and I fear this thread will decend even further into farce if I don't keep an eye on it. Goodnight.

Ah, you should have said you were wasted. That explains everything. Maybe when you sober up, you might be able to answer the question.

JRant

meeeeh wrote: »

There is no excuse for the guys actions and he got of extremely lightly (I didn't realize false teeth can be so cheap). But this bs about any very valid complaint about moronic behavior being some irrational hate of cyclists is ridiculous. Cycling on the footpaths is extremely dangerous, comparable to morons doing 100kmph on overtaking lane of motorway and texting at the same time. They are all where they shouldn't be and endangering others way more than couple of slaps would.

If you think a 1500kg vehicle travelling at 100km/hr is comparable to 90kgs travelling at 20km/hr then there's no hope for you.

Do the maths, it's simple (0.5 x mass x velocity^2)

Also for your information a few slaps kill way more people every year than cyclists so be careful what you wish for.

Ruu

Was this caught and posted on Yewtube by CycleDub?

SEPT 23 1989

Ruu wrote: »

Was this caught and posted on Yewtube by CycleDub?

One can only hope

colm_mcm

I came on here to post that ^

Kermit.de.frog

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

That a strange thing to use as a defining feature.

I would say a much better description for you is keyboard warrior.

keyboard motorist?

B.A._Baracus

Ruu wrote: »

Was this caught and posted on Yewtube by CycleDub?

Ahhh good ol CycleDub. We'd be lost without him you know. Who else would patrol the cycling lanes, giving people abuse for no reason, you know, being a right bollocks overall. It's a hard job he's got.

diomed

stimpson wrote: »

They are connected by the fact that in both instances people were cycling on the footpath. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend.

I'll play keepy-uppy with you.
You suggest I do not understand your whataboutery post. Suggesting I don't understand is a poor attempt to put yourself in a superior position.

In this case the pedestrian was the offender.
"he knocked the man off his bike, punched him and kneed him while he was in a headlock". “He went further than that, he used the straps to try to strangle him,” Judge Walsh said.
Of people cycling on footpaths, the judge said: “we live in a somewhat congested city and sometimes needs must.”
This thread is about this case, not about something that happened in another time and place, with zero connection with this case (except in you mind.)

FishOnABike

Grayson wrote: »

I've always felt that fines should be in proportion not only to the crime but also to the guilty parties ability to pay. 6k would be a nightmare for a lot of people to pay but in this case it's a tiny amount. Should have been a lot more than that.

Finland, Sweden and Switzerland use a salary based system for calculating speeding fines. The morr you earn, the more you pay. http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/13/swedish-man-may-pay-largest-speeding-fine-ever/

steamengine

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Ahhh good ol CycleDub. We'd be lost without him you know. Who else would patrol the cycling lanes, giving people abuse for no reason, you know, being a right bollocks overall. It's a hard job he's got.

That's what happens when the middle classes are let loose with bicycles and Go-Pro cameras - it was all peace and quiet when the working classes rode bikes years ago out of economic necessity.

diomed

diomed wrote: »

Of people cycling on footpaths, the judge said: “we live in a somewhat congested city and sometimes needs must.”

An interesting comment by his lordship. Is it illegal to cycle on footpaths?

steamengine

Deleted User wrote: »

An interesting comment by his lordship. Is it illegal to cycle on footpaths?

It is Yes and the Garda can enforce it - I know a cyclist who was pulled up for it on the pedestrianised North Earl Street.

Lyaiera

steamengine wrote: »

It is Yes and the Garda can enforce it - I know a cyclist who was pulled up for it on the pedestrianised North Earl Street. However, it is also discretionary AFAIK.

Police pretty much have discretion in everything they do. Then the DPP have discretion in how they handle it. Then juries have discretion in how they find. Then the judge has discretion in how they sentence. Then the prison has discretion in how they release. The whole thing is discretionary. Absolutism doesn't work.

Grayson

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

TBF if I saw a cyclist riding a bike on a public footpath i'd be minded to him a dig too. There are cycle lanes, use them.

I nearly crippled myself one night on a cycle path. Cycling slowly enough through fog I ran into the back of a parked car. Driver was in it, no lights on or anything. That's when there's a cycle lane. There's a road I live on where there's 50m of lane, then road, then lane. I've seen card overtake on the inside and I've seen dublin bus on part of a road that was marked as a cycle lane. That's because they pull into the cycle lane to pick up passengers so they just stay in it all the time.

I don't care how much people say cyclists are a nuisance, drivers are worse. People in this country have no idea how to indicate. They park on cycling lanes or double park. They drive far too close to the side of the road and I've lost count of the number of times I've been nearly forced off the road when they try to pass me. Sure they could wait till it's easy to pass me but drivers see cyclists as something that is slowing them down, not as a fellow traveller on the roads.
If I'm in traffic and making a turn at traffic lights I nearly always have some fcuker right up behind me and/or beeping his horn because he thinks I should be able to travel as fast as his car. Quite often I'll get off the bike, walk across two pedestrian crossings and then start cycling. Sure it take longer because I have to wait for the green man at the crossings, but it's safer and less stressful than having some idiot in a two ton vehicle a foot behind me.

Not all drivers are like that but there's more than enough to make cycling a dangerous, risky and anxious activity.

Collie D

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

TBF if I saw a cyclist riding a bike on a public footpath i'd be minded to him a dig too. There are cycle lanes, use them.

Don't you usually use your posting privileges to complain about how Dublin is full of filth and scum.

Have you finally gone Travis Bickle or are you joining the scum?

Two Tone

4ensic15 wrote: »

6K in penalties for trying to stop anti-social behaviour. Seems a bit over the top!

... "trying to stop anti-social behaviour"... by assaulting the guy through knocking him off his bike, punching him and trying to strangle him (which of course is not anti social behaviour) - best misrepresentation ever! :pac:

selastich2 wrote: »

Oh Look, someone a a different mode of transport...
...they won't get away with that kind of thing round these parts...

Do you mean the cyclist? If so, he should not have been cycling on the footpath (but the guy assaulting him did worse).

Hefty fine but he was lucky it was only that, considering the assault he carried out.

Some cyclists (and motorists) can be self entitled gowls but telling them to get the hell off the footpath is sufficient - no cause for assault.

Elliott S

4ensic15 wrote: »

What excuse did the cyclist offer for cycling on the footpath?

Maybe he didn't excuse it? Maybe he said "Yeah, I shouldn't have been doing that". That's nothing to do with him being assaulted either way.

Robsweezie

say what you will about the footpath, but that's just savagery. what he did was something you'd only ever attempt in grand theft auto.

Blatter

Blatter wrote: »

Outrageous that he's been offered the chance to buy his way out of a conviction. Committing such a serious assault over nothing more than a minor inconvenience would surely indicate that this guy is a real danger to the public. He deserves a suspended sentence and an order to pay the medical fees at the very least.

50 years old and his first offence suggests he's not a real danger to the public.

He committed a nasty offence. He deserves a sanction. But the only question is should he have a conviction recorded against him or not - I don't think it's a sentencing case at all, especially as he pleaded guilty.

I think in a case where the victim himself did not wish to add anything and was happy with the report setting out he had 3k in losses, it wasn't a bad decision at all.

MadDog76

4ensic15 wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/executive-50-tried-to-strangle-cyclist-with-helmet-straps-as-victim-was-using-footpath-34867684.html


6K in penalties for trying to stop anti-social behaviour. Seems a bit over the top!

If the cyclist was Cycledub I'd pay the 6k on behalf of the Executive ........

MadDog76

The Moldy Gowl wrote: »

I agree but I know the road. It's all big cobblestone and wrecks the wheels. There was construction going on as well.

He should have gotten off the bike and walked on the pedestrian footpath with his bike ........ the cyclist is a twat.

4ensic15

Grayson wrote: »

I nearly crippled myself one night on a cycle path. Cycling slowly enough through fog I ran into the back of a parked car. Driver was in it, no lights on or anything.

What about your lights? Typical.

suicide_circus

The Moldy Gowl wrote: »

I agree but I know the road. It's all big cobblestone and wrecks the wheels. There was construction going on as well.

How about he got off the bike and pushed for that stretch instead of being an antisocial ass hat?

micar

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No, just cyclists. I have a "thing" against cyclists and that "thing" is...

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

...is...

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

...i'm a MOTORIST!

I'm a cyclist
.......wait for it.....and a MOTORIST.......the horror!!!!

As a cyclist I'm more aware when Im driving of indicatings, road position and using mirrors. Pity all drivers aren't the same.

steamengine

Lyaiera wrote: »

Police pretty much have discretion in everything they do. Then the DPP have discretion in how they handle it. Then juries have discretion in how they find. Then the judge has discretion in how they sentence. Then the prison has discretion in how they release. The whole thing is discretionary. Absolutism doesn't work.

It's illegal to cycle on footpaths - just because discretion may be exercised subsequently doesn't mean it is somehow ok to do so. Unfortunately some cyclists are pretty much a law unto themselves and it's really no surprise that such transgressions lead to 'footpath' rage incidents such as this.

Shep_Dog

steamengine wrote: »

It's illegal to cycle on footpaths - just because discretion may be exercised subsequently doesn't mean it is somehow ok to do so. Unfortunately some cyclists are pretty much a law unto themselves and it's really no surprise that such transgressions lead to 'footpath' rage incidents such as this.

It's also illegal to park cars on footpaths, but I cannot recall any court cases involving stressed executives beating up the drivers of those cars.

steamengine

Shep_Dog wrote: »

It's also illegal to park cars on footpaths, but I cannot recall any court cases involving stressed executives beating up the drivers of those cars.

I doubt if anyone would have an issue with a parked bicycle on a footpath, which is the more accurate parallel to the point you've raised.

4ensic15

Shep_Dog wrote: »

It's also illegal to park cars on footpaths, but I cannot recall any court cases involving stressed executives beating up the drivers of those cars.

Usually when a car is parked, the driver is nowhere to be seen, so an executive cannot beat up the driver.

Collie D

Cyclists on footpath is one of my pet hates but are people really saying they deserve to have their teeth kicked in? Hopefully just keyboard warriors.

Lumen

The knock off the bike I can somewhat empathise with, though not justify, as a momentary loss of control, although to have any moral justification there would need to have been actual harm done by the cyclist, e.g bumping into another pedestrian, rather than just peril.

The subsequent beating is entirely something else.

RobbieTheRobber

4ensic15 wrote: »

Usually when a car is parked, the driver is nowhere to be seen, so an executive cannot beat up the driver.

With the volume of cars on the roads, it is a safe assumption to make that this individual has seen a member of the public illegally park and exit his/her vehicle. As he has no prior convictions, is it not also safe to assume he has never assaulted said illegal parkers?

4ensic15

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

With the volume of cars on the roads, it is a safe assumption to make that this individual has seen a member of the public illegally park and exit his/her vehicle. As he has no prior convictions, is it not also safe to assume he has never assaulted said illegal parkers?

Criminal activity has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. You cannot make assumptions.

Collie D

4ensic15 wrote: »

Criminal activity has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. You cannot make assumptions.

But you can kick a guy's teeth in for a minor violation? Sound

SteM

4ensic15 wrote: »

Usually when a car is parked, the driver is nowhere to be seen, so an executive cannot beat up the driver.

Hard to believe that any 50 year old that has lived or worked in Dublin City centre has not seen someone park up on a path and get out of the car at some point. I certainly have many times.

I work near that road where the attack took place and it's used by bike couriers all the time on the footpath, I notice he didn't go after one of those lads. The outcome would have been very different.

RobbieTheRobber

4ensic15 wrote: »

Criminal activity has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. You cannot make assumptions.

As he has never come to the attention of the garda, according to media reports. I will assume he does not normally assault members of the public for minor infractions ( such as littering, illegally crossing roads, illegally parking etc).

RobbieTheRobber

SteM wrote: »

Hard to believe that any 50 year old that has lived or worked in Dublin City centre has not seen someone park up on a path and get out of the car at some point. I certainly have many times.

I work near that road where the attack took place and it's used by bike couriers all the time on the footpath, I notice he didn't go after one of those lads. The outcome would have been very different.

I agree this was a cowardly attack on an individual the assailant perceived to be weaker than themselves.
This is not some Robin hood figure or a peoples vigilante this is a man who assaulted another individual who was not prepared or able to defend themselves and as such the attacker should of at the least been given a suspended sentence.

Assaulting another person should not be allowed.

4ensic15

He might well have remonstrated with other offenders. Not everyone goes off crying to the guards like Mister "cycle on the path with the most expensive dentures in Europe".