Near misses - mod warning 22/04 - see OP/post 822

amcalester

Mc Love wrote: »

Let me spell it out for you:
No-one on this thread knows what happened before they showed up on the cam.

What we do know:
Cyclist followed by insane taxi driver break the red light (both in the wrong in the eyes of the law), taxi driver encroaches on the cyclist in the cycle lane (taxi driver displaying dangerous driving), cyclist drives on the other side of the road (luckily no oncoming traffic & wrong in the eyes of the law), insane possibly drunk taxi driver crosses to the other side of the road to cause harm to the cyclist (wrong in the eyes of the law), cyclist mounts pavement (also wrong in the eyes of the law) followed by the insane taxi driver who also mounts the pavement (wrong in the eyes of the law)

The fact of the matter is we dont know what happened between the two prior to the video, but what we do know is that both broke the law.

You should read up on the defense of duress

"threats of immediate death or serious personal violence so great as to overbear the ordinary power of human resistance should be accepted as a justification for acts which would otherwise be criminal.”

rubadub

Is nobody going to mention the jaywalker at the end! yet another one "wrong in the eyes of the law".

Several pedestrians look like they are possibly breaking red lights.

Sure they are all as bad as each other!

Mc Love

uncommon_name wrote: »

Yes, wrong in the eyes of the law. But do you think any court would turn around to the cyclist and say what you done was wrong, you should never have crossed to the wrong side of the road to try and get away from this mad man over here. What were you thinking?
What the cyclist done was perfectly fine. If someone was chasing you down the road trying to rob you, you aren't going to stop at the pedestrian crossing, hit the button and wait for the little green man are you?

Why would I hit the button for the little green man if I'm on a bike? Does it make it right that I break a light if there's a threat on my life? No but in those circumstances you would have to break the law.

Do you know if the taxi driver was actively trying to kill him? Or just injure/scare the cyclist? Seeing as you know so much about the incident.

"threats of immediate death or serious personal violence so great as to overbear the ordinary power of human resistance should be accepted as a justification for acts which would otherwise be criminal.”

Yep you've said it - the act is criminal, finally getting through. But if it is under duress, that criminal act is justified but peaches being peaches, its still a criminal act.

rubadub wrote: »

Is nobody going to mention the jaywalker at the end! yet another one "wrong in the eyes of the law".

Several pedestrians look like they are possibly breaking red lights.

Sure they are all as bad as each other!

I was going to mention it, but if someone was chasing you down the road trying to rob you, you aren't going to stop at the pedestrian crossing, hit the button and wait for the little green man are you?

Fighting Tao

Boards really opens my eyes to how strange some peoples minds work.

Mc Love

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Boards really opens my eyes to how strange some peoples minds work.

Dont go over to After Hours - your mind will be blown

Ray Bloody Purchase

You can only ever be right or wrong on the internet. Nothing inbetween.

amcalester

Mc Love wrote: »

Yep you've said it - the act is criminal, finally getting through. But if it is under duress, that criminal act is justified but peaches being peaches, its still a criminal act.

But everyone knows that, everyone knows that breaking a red light is against the law. You, however, seem to be equating the actions taxi-driver and the cyclist as being equally wrong when that it not the case.

The cyclist was completely justified is his actions on the clip, irrespective of what happened before.

Mc Love

amcalester wrote: »

But everyone knows that, everyone knows that breaking a red light is against the law. You, however, seem to be equating the actions taxi-driver and the cyclist as being equally wrong when that it not the case.

The cyclist was completely justified is his actions on the clip, irrespective of what happened before.

I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree.

xckjoo

Mc Love wrote: »

I was going to mention it, but if someone was chasing you down the road trying to rob you, you aren't going to stop at the pedestrian crossing, hit the button and wait for the little green man are you?

Do we have a jaywalking law in Ireland?

Weepsie

Mod Note -Mc Love please take a break from posting here, you're stirring it completely here and equating several things of varying risk and illegality to amount to the same thing. You're also pointing out that we don't know the whole story, while using that same ignorance of facts to jump to a conclusion of guilt which is equally unfair.

Don't respond in thread, if you have an issue pm me or another mod.

Mode note 2:

Further more, if anyone wishes to respond withpersonal abuse to other posters, they can take a break too.

Weepsie

xckjoo wrote: »

Do we have a jaywalking law in Ireland?

You're supposed to cross at a crossing if it is within 15 ft / metres? Can't remember which one.

RobertFoster

Weepsie wrote: »

You're supposed to cross at a crossing if it is within 15 ft / metres? Can't remember which one.

Metres: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print#article46

(7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.

randomname2005

Felexicon wrote: »

Ah there is to be fair.

If looking at the video in isolation, there is.

If looking at the video and considering the range of things that could have happened previously, there still is but it becomes more vague. What could a cyclist possibly have done to warrant that kind of behaviour - scratched the paint , broken a light? Neither of those demand the kind of blatant disregard for 3rd party safety that the taxi driver showed. I can't see there being structural damage to the taxi given that the cyclist would have needed to hit the car hard to cause a lot of damage (dents etc).

But that level of damage in a different context - if your car was scratched or a light broken in a car park by another car and the driver drove off, would you put their life in as much danger? And would you endanger other members of the public?

Hurrache

One of the papers doorstepped the driver, he claimed the cyclist broke his wing mirror and justified his actions because of that claim.

buffalo

Hurrache wrote: »

One of the papers doorstepped the driver, he claimed the cyclist broke his wing mirror and justified his actions because of that claim.

Video's not great quality, but the passenger side looks like it's been pushed in. Hard to tell if it's broken though - doesn't look like it's hanging off or missing certainly.

Hurrache

The link I posted yesterday is in full screen HD but no point me checking it from a phone at moment. If it's just pushed in I wouldn't be surprised the lunatic taxi driver still reacted like he did.

Duckjob

Just mentioned on NewsTalk Breakfast.

Paul Williams apparently having a road to Dasmascus moment saying: That taxi driver will probably be getting a visit to An Garda Siochana because you JUST CAN'T DO that!

Paul Williams wrote:

If a cyclist came up and started pulling my mirror on my car then me and the cyclist are going to have a serious crash. And he won’t have to be worrying about banging into my car a second time, let me tell you that. You have been warned.

Weepsie

buffalo wrote: »

Video's not great quality, but the passenger side looks like it's been pushed in. Hard to tell if it's broken though - doesn't look like it's hanging off or missing certainly.

This entirely. Looks no more than that when you see it at the end.

mloc123

Hurrache wrote: »

One of the papers doorstepped the driver, he claimed the cyclist broke his wing mirror and justified his actions because of that claim.

I think the only thing that could have justified the taxi drivers actions is that the cyclist had previously attempted to murder him... because anything less than that...

CramCycle

Hurrache wrote: »

One of the papers doorstepped the driver, he claimed the cyclist broke his wing mirror and justified his actions because of that claim.

The AGS will love that, a confession and video evidence. Undoubetdly one of our fine judiciary will understand and he will get pittance as a fine.

Duckjob wrote: »

Paul Williams apparently having a road to Dasmascus moment saying: That taxi driver will probably be getting a visit to An Garda Siochana because you JUST CAN'T DO that!

Newstalk Breakfast Editor: Remember Paul, the last time you had a go at cyclists we had alot of complaints, and you essentially said it was fair game to murder someone over minor property damage.
Paul: Yes, and...
NB Editor: Well, apparently, that is not good, and frowned upon, so we are going to try a different tact. Use the same annoying high pitch you always use when you want people to side with you and read this
Paul: Yes boss
NB Editor: There's a good boy, here's a biscuit.

Andrea and Shane come over and pat him on the head and give him a good rub behind the ears.

greenspurs

pics and details of the driver are around...

I doubt they can be posted here ?

Chiparus

Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »

You can only ever be right or wrong on the internet. Nothing inbetween.

I sort of agree with you.

ED E

Fighting Tao

Only one side of the story so far. Don’t the backs of wing mirrors just pop back on?

CramCycle

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Only one side of the story so far. Don’t the backs of wing mirrors just pop back on?

Thats what I was thinking, not even sure how a cyclist would do that, it would be easier to properly break the mirror attachment on a drive by.

I wonder will the cyclist come forward, it would be great for the Gardai if they did.

Lambay island

CramCycle wrote: »

Thats what I was thinking, not even sure how a cyclist would do that, it would be easier to properly break the mirror attachment on a drive by.

I wonder will the cyclist come forward, it would be great for the Gardai if they did.

Yep if it looks and smells like BS, it generally is BS. Wouldn't surprise me if nothing happened previously going by the most recent taxi videos. By where the damage is on the mirror it would be more likely that the taxi driver closed passed the cyclist and the cyclist could have stuck his hand out to signal that and this is where it could have happened(who knows). Whatever, this clown should not be allowed drive again

uncommon_name

We still don't know what happened before the wing mirror was hit. Maybe the drive cut him off, pulled out in front of him etc...
But hitting someones wing mirror doesnt warrant chasing him down the wrong side of the road and up on a foot path in the middle of a busy city. Just keep driving behind him until he stops and then approach him. If the cyclist was in the wrong then call the Gardai to come and stop him and sort it out.

DaveyDave

Wing mirrors are hard to break. Slapping one won't do it, they actually bend forwards as well as backwards. You have to hit it downwards/upwards directly to break it. I'd be willing to bet he slapped it and it was fine. It sets people off though, but the cyclist obviously had a reason to do it.

Is it justified? No, but it's relatively minor in comparison to trying to run someone over.

Rechuchote

It's scarcely one side of the story. They're completely condemning the driver's action. Of course they have to quote his bizarre excuse, but the whole tone of the story is one of shock at the driver's behaviour.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

CramCycle wrote: »

Thats what I was thinking, not even sure how a cyclist would do that, it would be easier to properly break the mirror attachment on a drive by.

Most mirrors pop back on impact, they don't tend to break at the joint, depends on the impact (force, material, angle etc). The plastic covering can pop off quite easily, not all come off easily though. Who can confidently say that it's not possible? Nobody. Some people here saying exactly what will happen or won't happen, but they simply don't know that.

Anyway, that driver should be banned for life. He risked the lives of others (not only the cyclist) just because of a piece of plastic costing 40 euro.

It's not nice to have your property damaged, especially if you are in traffic and the scumbag who damaged your property knows what they have done and they cycle off. Still doesn't even come close to warranting this kind of reaction.