The state of comments online about road traffic deaths and cycling

magicbastarder

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

These Green party scum want putting on trial.

this always comes up. the green party must be a *hell* of a powerful bunch of people considering they occupy only 16% of council seats in dublin.

doublejobbing 2

magicbastarder wrote: »

this always comes up. the green party must be a *hell* of a powerful bunch of people considering they occupy only 16% of council seats in dublin.

Labour and the other left groups are no better. All in alliance.

Thelonious Monk

magicbastarder wrote: »

this always comes up. the green party must be a *hell* of a powerful bunch of people considering they occupy only 16% of council seats in dublin.

Lately everyone seems to blame them for the carbon taxes introduced by FG to align with the Paris Agreement that FG signed up for a few years ago too. Damn Greens.

doublejobbing 2

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

Theft of our personal time.

Hazel Chu is a particularly odious character. The way she is given sometimes twice weekly interviews and opinion pieces in the national newspapers is despicable- she's a local councillor in an honorary role as mayor yet is being groomed for election as a TD.

I'm from Dublin and can barely remember who the last five mayors were yet this wan has a higher national profile than Rudy Giulani did.

Oh look, a brand new account trolling across multiple forums *yawn*

Pinch Flat

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Because the person is posting that to try and lay the blame on the cyclist, simple as that. They're trying to say "I hope the driver doesn't feel bad because it was obviously the cyclist fault, I saw one break red lights the other day".
It's just disgusting carry on.
What kind of a sap are you with that signature on your posts too? Ffs, get a life.

It's that fake sympathy as well. "Condolences to the cyclists family but I saw one without a helmet the other day".

Thelonious Monk

Pinch Flat wrote: »

It's that fake sympathy as well. "Condolences to the cyclists family but I saw one without a helmet the other day".

Yeah, I've seen Dublin Live comments after cyclist accidents. At least they're honest enough to say they're glad the cyclist was hurt on that sh*tshow of a site.

doublejobbing 2

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yeah, I've seen Dublin Live comments after cyclist accidents. At least they're honest enough to say they're glad the cyclist was hurt on that sh*tshow of a site.

On another thread you boast about your irresponsible cycling habits ("I wear earphones all the time") and yet get the hump that people have an issue with cyclists being the author of their own misfortune.

Sure I once drove after 15 pints and some idiot dented my bonnet when I mounted the footpath.

No difference really.

endacl

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

On another thread you boast about your irresponsible cycling habits ("I wear earphones all the time") and yet get the hump that people have an issue with cyclists being the author of their own misfortune.

Sure I once drove after 15 pints and some idiot dented my bonnet when I mounted the footpath.

No difference really.

Y U so cwoss?

Pinch Flat

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

On another thread you boast about your irresponsible cycling habits ("I wear earphones all the time") and yet get the hump that people have an issue with cyclists being the author of their own misfortune.

Sure I once drove after 15 pints and some idiot dented my bonnet when I mounted the footpath.

No difference really.

Top drawer in trolling to be fair. Equating headphones and drink driving. Loooool

doublejobbing 2

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Top drawer in trolling to be fair. Equating headphones and drink driving. Loooool

Both as irresponsible as the other. While the first is more likey to injure the offender than the second, the first will risk saddling a motorist with criminal penalties and making them uninsurable.

The arrogance of the cyclists is breathtaking but not a bit surprising.

Thelonious Monk

You'll be delighted to hear e-scooters will be made legal next year in Ireland, there will be absolute chaos on the roads!

Stark

I predict an initial wave of deaths, after which herd immunity leaves us with only those fit and able enough to outrun the scooters.

Pinch Flat

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

The arrogance of the cyclists is breathtaking but not a bit surprising.

Lol. I drive as well. Any idea where driving with 15 pints in a 1.5 tonne vehicle will leave you?

AndrewJRenko

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

No difference really.

Have another think about that now.

07Lapierre

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

On another thread you boast about your irresponsible cycling habits ("I wear earphones all the time") and yet get the hump that people have an issue with cyclists being the author of their own misfortune.

Sure I once drove after 15 pints and some idiot dented my bonnet when I mounted the footpath.

No difference really.

That's a ludicrous comparison!

http://www.john-s-allen.com/bikexprt/bicycle/hearing.htm

breezy1985

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You'll be delighted to hear e-scooters will be made legal next year in Ireland, there will be absolute chaos on the roads!

Well they are already all over the place so I don't see how it changes anything.

I just want to be clear though speaking as a member of the cyclist hive mind we would like to point out that we have no association with the scooterists and will not be held responsible for their actions

AndrewJRenko

doublejobbing 2 wrote: »

Sorry, I meant 30km limits. Looks like the worst we will get is 40km. Bad but could have been worse.

Seems to be a bit of momentum building towards a 30 kmph limit;
https://twitter.com/LenaHudafor30/status/1320936661492985856

magicbastarder

breezy1985 wrote: »

I just want to be clear though speaking as a member of the cyclist hive mind we would like to point out that we have no association with the scooterists and will not be held responsible for their actions

i thought we'd planned a hostile takeover of their thoughts and intentions? or did that vote not carry at the militant cyclist AGM?

breezy1985

magicbastarder wrote: »

i thought we'd planned a hostile takeover of their thoughts and intentions? or did that vote not carry at the militant cyclist AGM?

It was felt that they had too many Marxists in the organisation and it wouldn't fit well with our Trotskyism

Thelonious Monk

breezy1985 wrote: »

Well they are already all over the place so I don't see how it changes anything.

I just want to be clear though speaking as a member of the cyclist hive mind we would like to point out that we have no association with the scooterists and will not be held responsible for their actions

I was being sarcastic, delighted that they'll be allowed. Anything that isn't a car on the road is great in my book, including motorised scooters/motorbikes, I wish they were encouraged more.

breezy1985

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I was being sarcastic, delighted that they'll be allowed. Anything that isn't a car on the road is great in my book, including motorised scooters/motorbikes, I wish they were encouraged more.

Fair enough. Some of the comments are so dumb it's hard to tell the joke ones

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder wrote: »

i thought we'd planned a hostile takeover of their thoughts and intentions? or did that vote not carry at the militant cyclist AGM?

Took so long to read out the long list of red light breaking cyclists that it took up agenda item number one. didn't even get to discuss who has paid road tax and insurance.

breezy1985

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Took so long to read out the long list of red light breaking cyclists that it took up agenda item number one. didn't even get to discuss who has paid road tax and insurance.

Red naturally means go for us good comrade cyclists and insurance is a construct of the bourgeois motorist

Seth Brundle

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Took so long to read out the long list of red light breaking cyclists that it took up agenda item number one. didn't even get to discuss who has paid road tax and insurance.

...also bear in mind that the AGM started early because everyone arrived early having broken every red light on the way!

breezy1985

Seth Brundle wrote: »

...also bear in mind that the AGM started early because everyone arrived early having broken every red light on the way!

It was hard to get an accurate show of hands too because no one was wearing hi-vis gloves

Pinch Flat

breezy1985 wrote: »

It was hard to get an accurate show of hands too because no one was wearing hi-vis gloves

I've suggested members arrive in vi-his helmet covers for next year's AGM. Makes it much easier to do a head count and also addresses items 2 and 3 on the agenda - helmets and hi vis

breezy1985

Pinch Flat wrote: »

I've suggested members arrive in vi-his helmet covers for next year's AGM. Makes it much easier to do a head count and also addresses items 2 and 3 on the agenda - helmets and hi vis

Ya and given that most cyclists are all bloodthirsty loons a helmet is advisable when arguments kick off.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

A fella I work with was like a bull in a China shop in work this morning. All worked up and angry.

I asked him what's bothering him. Said he was "held up by cyclists blocking the bus lane on the way to work".

He was in his private car after 7 am, even if he was entitled to use the bus lane he would still have been sailing along faster than the law abiding motorists in tailbacks in the normal lane. The mind boggles.

gmacww

breezy1985 wrote: »

It was hard to get an accurate show of hands too because no one was wearing hi-vis gloves

I thought we were just going to show our reg plates and scan our licenses in?

breezy1985

gmacww wrote: »

I thought we were just going to show our reg plates and scan our licenses in?

Make sure you have your insurance cert with you to show as proof of I.D. when you are collecting your ballot paper

Thelonious Monk

Sorry for posting Dublin live, but a car crashes into a shop on George's St and no one seems interested on Dublin Live facebook. He must have been pissed.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/gardai-crash-dublin-traffic-ireland-19218954

It's hilarious really. Bring a cyclist into the equation and they'd all be foaming at the mouth.

Seth Brundle

^^^ that is the incident where a car and a building collided apparently

https://twitter.com/DubFireBrigade/status/1323933493903187971

breezy1985

Seth Brundle wrote: »

^^^ that is the incident where a car and a building collided apparently

https://twitter.com/DubFireBrigade/status/1323933493903187971

Building didn't indicate I bet

Thelonious Monk

Normally that street is packed with people. Lots of people could have been hurt or killed. When the usual mouth breathers are giving out about how dangerous cyclists are, this is the kind of thing they need to be shown. Although I doubt it'd change their mentality.

begbysback

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Sorry for posting Dublin live, but a car crashes into a shop on George's St and no one seems interested on Dublin Live facebook. He must have been pissed.

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/gardai-crash-dublin-traffic-ireland-19218954

It's hilarious really. Bring a cyclist into the equation and they'd all be foaming at the mouth.

He managed to slam into the front of the shop with the back of the car, this says it all, would you like to hazard a guess how fast he was going in reverse whilst drunk?

also Dublin live links should be banned, absolute clickbait sensationalism of the highest order

Thelonious Monk

begbysback wrote: »

He managed to slam into the front of the shop with the back of the car, this says it all, would you like to hazard a guess how fast he was going in reverse whilst drunk?

also Dublin live links should be banned, absolute clickbait sensationalism of the highest order

No idea how drunk they were but i saw a car the other day driving at least 90km/h in a 50km zone.

begbysback

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

No idea how drunk they were but i saw a car the other day driving at least 90km/h in a 50km zone.

Sounds like bad speed limit marking, would it be safe enough to increase limit to 60 or 80?

Thelonious Monk

begbysback wrote: »

Sounds like bad speed limit marking, would it be safe enough to increase limit to 60 or 80?

well if they just made all the speed limits higher, speeding wouldn't be an issue

begbysback

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

well if they just made all the speed limits higher, speeding wouldn't be an issue

Now, now monk, you are implying that a reduction in speed limits would make speeding more of an issue? How’s about we propose to have accurate speed limits?

Thelonious Monk

begbysback wrote: »

Now, now monk, you are implying that a reduction in speed limits would make speeding more of an issue? How’s about we propose to have accurate speed limits?

no idea wtf you're on about now

Thelonious Monk

https://www.thejournal.ie/witness-appeal-hit-and-run-newbridge-5261815-Nov2020/

3 RIPs, for a murder. No one condemning dangerous driving.

Thelonious Monk

Well it's pretty crazy isn't it. Zero interest in it at all. It is just totally accepted that you can kill someone in a car. It needs to change.

breezy1985

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well it's pretty crazy isn't it. Zero interest in it at all. It is just totally accepted that you can kill someone in a car. It needs to change.

Imagine if pushing someone off a cliff was a "gravity accident"

SeanW

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/witness-appeal-hit-and-run-newbridge-5261815-Nov2020/

3 RIPs, for a murder. No one condemning dangerous driving.

There have been a few more comments since. A few more RIPs and plenty of condemnation of drivers involved in hit and run collisions. All of it fair, IMHO.

But hey, it seems as though without any knowledge of the case, you've established as fact that the driver set out to cause the death of the pedestrian. Because intent to kill is a requirement for anything to be called murder. I would be interested to hear how you determined that it was murder and by what means you ruled out manslaughter.

Although it's possible that this pedestrian was one of the up to 70% of pedestrians that cause their own deaths (source) due to their own actions, given that the driver fled the scene we can infer that they were culpable and looking to evade due responsibility.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well it's pretty crazy isn't it. Zero interest in it at all. It is just totally accepted that you can kill someone in a car. It needs to change.

Can you be more specific? Who exactly is defending hit-and-run drivers? Or those who commit vehicular murder?

breezy1985 wrote: »

Imagine if pushing someone off a cliff was a "gravity accident"

I suspect in most such cases, mens rea is fairly easy to show.

AndrewJRenko

SeanW wrote: »

Although it's possible that this pedestrian was one of the up to 70% of pedestrians that cause their own deaths (source) due to their own actions, given that the driver fled the scene we can infer that they were culpable and looking to evade due responsibility.

Except that's not what that PowerPoint slideshow says. It doesn't say that they 'caused their own deaths'. It says that they are 'culpable or part-culpable'. And it doesn't define what culpable means. And it notes the limitations of the small sample size. And it's not peer reviewed.

suicide_circus

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/witness-appeal-hit-and-run-newbridge-5261815-Nov2020/

3 RIPs, for a murder. No one condemning dangerous driving.

Man stop reading the fooking Journal, let alone the comment section.

If cycling didnt increase my commute x3 i would do it no issue. I also dont fancy cycling at 3am in fairness.

Thelonious Monk

suicide_circus wrote: »

Man stop reading the fooking Journal, let alone the comment section.

If cycling didnt increase my commute x3 i would do it no issue. I also dont fancy cycling at 3am in fairness.

It's pretty much the only free news source for Ireland these days. But yes best avoided I think, it frustrates me too much.

magicbastarder

actually, would be an interesting subscription model - pay five quid a month to access the journal, and the only difference is the comments are switched off...

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except that's not what that PowerPoint slideshow says. It doesn't say that they 'caused their own deaths'. It says that they are 'culpable or part-culpable'. And it doesn't define what culpable means. And it notes the limitations of the small sample size. And it's not peer reviewed.

No, 70% of pedestrian fatalities were caused by the pedestrians own actions. Joint culpability (error by both driver and pedestrian) was only established in 2% of cases. The methodology and sources for the data were clear. But just like the international context, the data and evidence contradicts your narrative. :rolleyes: I'm sorry you don't like facts, evidence, data or context, but that does not make them any less true. :rolleyes:

But I don't think someone who blindly accepts specious claims of specific intent to kill - as you did by thanking the post below - is in a position to split hairs.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/witness-appeal-hit-and-run-newbridge-5261815-Nov2020/

3 RIPs, for a murder. No one condemning dangerous driving.

Because that is what has been claimed here. That the driver in this case specifically set out to intentionally kill the pedestrian. This is of course possible, but I doubt that the poster or any of the users who thanked it have the slightest shred of evidence to back up this claim.

I ask the poster and the cycling circle jerk here, do you have evidence of intent to kill? Because that is a prerequisite for an accusation of murder.

Seth Brundle

SeanW wrote: »

Because that is what has been claimed here. That the driver in this case specifically set out to intentionally kill the pedestrian. This is of course possible, but I doubt that the poster or any of the users who thanked it have the slightest shred of evidence to back up this claim.

I ask the poster and the cycling circle jerk here, do you have evidence of intent to kill? Because that is a prerequisite for an accusation of murder.

I'm not familiar with that case but one could argue that if a driver drives recklessly in full knowledge that they share the road with vulnerable road users, then surely they are carrying out their actions knowing a potential outcome, no matter how unlikely.
One could also use the example of shooting randomly into a street. Chances are that you won't hit someone but there is still a risk of it happening.
On that basis and given the mantra over the years about "Speed Kills" and so on, a driver cannot say that they didn't set out to kill someone if they manage to do so. very few road traffic incidents are accidental. Most are the end result of a bad decision, usually by the driver.
So to murder someone requires intent. Surely driving dangerously, knowing there is a remote possibility of killing someone, also shows intent?