Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Bristol bus driver 'used vehicle as a weapon' to ram cyclist off road.

13

Comments

  • #102
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    corktina wrote: »
    ve have vays of making you talk!

    thread now gone beyond all sense.time to call it a day

    You not being able to answer a simple question does actually sound gone beyond all sense.

    Your inability to answer the simple question clearly shows you want one rule for cyclists and another for everybody else.


  • #103
    Patser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,080 ✭✭✭Patser


    I can't believe this thread is still going and with so much division. I'm a bus driver and it's quite simple, the bus driver was wrong. Beyond being wrong, he was way, way, way out of line. This was a case of road rage, pure and simple and is indefensible. Regardless of any perceived incitements or whatever, you do not try and kill some-one. And this makes no difference if you're a bus driver, cyclist, motorist, pedestrian whatever, you just don't do it.


  • #104
    coolbeans
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,124 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    What he said.


  • #105
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    monument wrote: »
    Yes, indirectly you are.
    No. I am directly saying the bus driver was in the wrong. I never disputed that.

    What's up for debate is whether the cyclist was acting the bolix or not.
    monument wrote: »
    What did the gardai say and do?
    Advised him to ignore her, but warned him that she could make trouble. Told him to call them if she did.


  • #106
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    SerialComplaint wrote: »
    I guess many drivers would conclude from this video that the cyclist is 'acting the maggot'.

    So have a look at the detailed analysis;

    http://youtu.be/v1y41At_m9o
    Taxi driver clearly in the wrong. However, if I was driving my car and someone cut me up like that, if I rolled down the window and stuck my hand out and thumped the offending vehicle I would expect the situation would not improve. The cyclist loses his moral high ground for thumping the taxi.


  • #107
    coolbeans
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,124 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    n97 mini wrote: »
    SerialComplaint wrote: »
    I guess many drivers would conclude from this video that the cyclist is 'acting the maggot'.

    So have a look at the detailed analysis;

    http://youtu.be/v1y41At_m9o
    Taxi driver clearly in the wrong. However, if I was driving my car and someone cut me up like that, if I rolled down the window and stuck my hand out and thumped the offending vehicle I would expect the situation would not improve. The cyclist loses his moral high ground for thumping the taxi.
    If u were driving ypu would probavly lean on the horn to wake offending driver up. Cyclists clearly don't have that option and when you are on a bike the imminent threat to life and limb is personified far beyond anything you will experience in a car. In such instances a slap on the bodywork can wake someone up who genuinely hasnt seen you. Its not ideal but if it prevents further movement into your safe space as a cyclist so be it.


  • #108
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    coolbeans wrote: »
    In such instances a slap on the bodywork can wake someone up who genuinely hasnt seen you.
    Of course it would, but I wouldn't be expecting it to put the owner of the vehicle in a good mood, as thumping the car would be viewed as an aggressive reaction.

    In this case the taxi approached from behind so was already aware of the cyclist, so I doubt he would have been run over in any case. Indeed things would have probably worked out better for him as he wouldn't have an eejit taxi driver shouting in his face.

    His follow up video has an element of cyclist persecution complex to it though.


  • #109
    SerialComplaint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,644 ✭✭✭SerialComplaint


    n97 mini wrote: »

    His follow up video has an element of cyclist persecution complex to it though.
    I wonder what might cause that particular complex to develop?


  • #110
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    n97 mini wrote:
    Taxi driver clearly in the wrong. However, if I was driving my car and someone cut me up like that, if I rolled down the window and stuck my hand out and thumped the offending vehicle I would expect the situation would not improve. The cyclist loses his moral high ground for thumping the taxi.

    If you were driving and found yourself in that situation would you blow the horn at the taxi driver? The Rules of the Road suggest you do so to make others aware of your presence when necessary and this is a situation that seems to qualify. You'd expect that blowing your horn would not be taken by the other party as an aggressive action on your part, right?

    While driving my car on a roundabout a while back another car drove onto the roundabout in front of me. I hit the brakes and blew the horn. Turns out he was taking the same exit at me. It also turns out he took grave offense at my blowing the horn 'cos on the next roundabout a few hundred metres further along, where he was directly in front of me, he slammed on the brakes, hopped out of his car (essentially parking his car on the roundabout), and stormed towards my car to take issue with me. Apparently, in his mind my blowing the horn at him was something that warranted a violent response.

    The moral of the story is that it is impossible to predict what will trigger an aggressive reaction in people with issues. That bus driver has issues. The taxi driver in the other clip has issues. The driver I encountered above has issues. You might like to believe that there are very cleanly delineated categories of things that are somehow acceptable to do while on the road, and things that constitute "acting the bollox" which apparently deserve some form of punishment, but you'd be wrong. Things are rarely as black and white as that. The cyclist reacted to apparent dangerous driving on the part of the bus driver (the incident not captured in the video clip), the bus driver's response was completely out of proportion and that cannot be blamed on the cyclist. You might take issue with the way in which the cyclist reacted, but in the heat of the moment any of us might well react in a way that we wouldn't with a cooler head. You also can't possibly know how little or how much that reaction by the cyclist affected the bus driver, the actions taken by bus driver demonstrate that he was unstable and in different circumstances perhaps even a car blowing its horn at him would have caused him to target the source of annoyance. This incident is less about a cyclist versus a bus driver and more about a very dangerous individual (who happens to be a bus driver) and the target of his aggression on the day (who happens to be a cyclist).


  • #111
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    doozerie wrote: »
    You'd expect that blowing your horn would not be taken by the other party as an aggressive action on your part, right?
    Thumping someone's car and blowing the horn are not the same thing.

    Suppose the horn wasn't working, would it be acceptable to thump the other car in that case? I think not.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,034 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Suppose the horn wasn't working, would it be acceptable to thump the other car in that case? I think not.

    "Thumping" is a rather subjective judgement. One person's knocking on a door could be another person's thumping on a door. Slapping on a car's body has the same effect as knocking on someone's door or blowing your horn, it makes a noise that gets someone's attention. As long as someone doesn't hit it so hard as to cause damage...


  • #113
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Thumping someone's car and blowing the horn are not the same thing.

    Suppose the horn wasn't working, would it be acceptable to thump the other car in that case? I think not.

    If someone in a moving car has contrived to drive in a manner that they are within arms reach of an unprotected human being then, by that fact, it suggests that some form of dangerous or inconsiderate driving has taken place. In these situations adrenalin tends to take over - thats what its for.

    I recall a woman in a car trying to come up inside me and turn with me as I was turning to the right - out of a side road. The apparent intent of her manouevre was to place me in a situation where I would be on the wrong side of the road when finished. I banged on her side window with my left-hand - I did not have to move my elbow much past 90 degrees to do so.

    I reported the incident to the Garda.


  • #114
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    n97 mini wrote:
    Thumping someone's car and blowing the horn are not the same thing.

    They are to some people, that's entirely my point. Unstable people are, well, unstable, the clue is in the name.
    n97 mini wrote:
    Suppose the horn wasn't working, would it be acceptable to thump the other car in that case? I think not.

    Well if the choice is between thumping the other car to attract their attention to a potential collision, or simply letting the collision happen without making any effort to alert them, then sure you could choose the latter option. In that situation it's your choice, so it's obviously your prerogative to make no effort to warn the other driver, but it'll probably mean that you are held at least partly culpable for the accident and any costs or penalties incurred may be shared by you and the other party. Some people would call that choice irresponsible and/or silly though.

    Not to mention that you are obliged to ensure that your horn is in working order or that will add to your culpability as your vehicle may be deemed unsafe to drive.


  • #115
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    doozerie wrote: »
    They are to some people, that's entirely my point.
    In that case some people are wrong.
    doozerie wrote: »
    Well if the choice is between thumping the other car to attract their attention to a potential collision,
    Potential. There was no collision, and we do not know if there would have been one if he hadn't thumped the car.
    doozerie wrote: »
    As long as someone doesn't hit it so hard as to cause damage...
    And the only way for the owner to inspect for damage is to stop the car and get out, right?

    Honestly. If anyone thinks that thumping someone else's car, or interfering with their property in any other way is acceptable in any circumstance, my advice would be don't try it at home kids.


  • #116
    droidus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    n97 mini wrote: »
    In that case some people are wrong.


    Potential. There was no collision, and we do not know if there would have been one if he hadn't thumped the car.


    And the only way for the owner to inspect for damage is to stop the car and get out, right?

    Honestly. If anyone thinks that thumping someone else's car, or interfering with their property in any other way is acceptable in any circumstance, my advice would be don't try it at home kids.

    I think it's safe to say that you've never cycled in traffic.

    Ive never 'thumped' a car myself, but in a situation like the video above, where a multi-ton vehicle is trying to crush me into the side of the road Id have absolutely no hesitation in doing whatever was necessary to get the attention of the driver. Its also an instinctive reaction when something tries to squash you - you push back, its not aggressive.

    If anything, you're doing the driver a service - warning him that they are driving dangerously and on the verge of committing an act of criminal negligence which could easily result in a manslaughter charge..


  • #117
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    n97 mini wrote:
    In that case some people are wrong.

    Yes, and you are one of them when you hold the cyclist in any way responsible for someone driving a bus at him.


  • #118
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Potential. There was no collision, and we do not know if there would have been one if he hadn't thumped the car.

    If I follow your logic correctly - it would be ok to wave a loaded gun in someone's face provided you don't actually pull the trigger? If someone feels threatened by that behaviour then thats their problem?
    n97 mini wrote: »
    Honestly. If anyone thinks that thumping someone else's car, or interfering with their property in any other way is acceptable in any circumstance, my advice would be don't try it at home kids.

    So again if I understand your logic correctly, the fact that a car is private property entitles the owner to engage in threatening behaviour on the basis that the law protects personal property rights above the personal safety of others?


  • #119
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    If I follow your logic correctly - it would be ok to wave a loaded gun in someone's face provided you don't actually pull the trigger? If someone feels threatened by that behaviour then thats their problem?
    No-one had any guns. Seriously people, can we stick to the facts and stop trying to invent hypothetical situations to prove points.
    galwaycyclist wrote: »
    So again if I understand your logic correctly, the fact that a car is private property entitles the owner to engage in threatening behaviour
    No, you clearly do not understand.

    I'll put it as simply as possible for you: Just as no-one is entitled to use threatening behaviour, no-one has the right to interfere with anyone else's property.

    Now this is the fuzzy bit, so do try to keep up: Interfering with someone else's property may cause them to get annoyed with you.


  • #120
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,034 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    n97 mini wrote: »
    No-one had any guns. Seriously people, can we stick to the facts and stop trying to invent hypothetical situations to prove points.


    No, you clearly do not understand.

    I'll put it as simply as possible for you: Just as no-one is entitled to use threatening behaviour, no-one has the right to interfere with anyone else's property.

    Now this is the fuzzy bit, so do try to keep up: Interfering with someone else's property may cause them to get annoyed with you.

    Merely touching someone's property doesn't constitute interference. Turning violent because someone touched your property makes you a psycho.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    n97 mini wrote:
    Now this is the fuzzy bit, so do try to keep up: Interfering with someone else's property may cause them to get annoyed with you.

    In this thread you interfere with logic, which probably annoys several people. If any of those people were to drive an Internet bus through your monitor would you feel in any way responsible for their actions?


  • #122
    droidus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Now this is the fuzzy bit, so do try to keep up: Interfering with someone else's property may cause them to get annoyed with you.

    You're talking absolute nonsense.

    If some tries to stab you with a knife you have a right to interfere with his property and take the knife.

    If someone tries to set fire to your house you have the right to interfere with his property and take his box of matches.

    If someone is in the process of running you over have the right to warn them by banging on their car.

    Here's some shorthand as you seem to have trouble with this concept.

    Human rights > Property rights.


  • #123
    coolbeans
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,124 ✭✭✭coolbeans


    @N97. You seem to have the attitude of a sadist. Driver threatens to maim another road user through their witless actions however you take issue with the guy who wishes to preserve their own life and limb by thumping an inanimate object that can be replaced. I know some cars cost a lot but come on, develop a little perspective.


  • #124
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    droidus wrote: »
    You're talking absolute nonsense.

    If some tries to stab you with a knife you have a right to interfere with his property and take the knife.

    If someone tries to set fire to your house you have the right to interfere with his property and take his box of matches.

    If someone is in the process of running you over have the right to warn them by banging on their car.

    Here's some shorthand as you seem to have trouble with this concept.

    Human rights > Property rights.
    There were no knives, no fires, no boxes of matches, and no-one was in the actually running anyone over in any car.

    Hmm, not me whose talking non-sense.

    @coolbeans. People get annoyed when others interfere with their property. I'm not defending it, it's merely a fact of life.


  • #125
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    droidus wrote: »
    You're talking absolute nonsense.

    If some tries to stab you with a knife you have a right to interfere with his property and take the knife.

    If someone tries to set fire to your house you have the right to interfere with his property and take his box of matches.

    If someone is in the process of running you over have the right to warn them by banging on their car.

    Here's some shorthand as you seem to have trouble with this concept.

    Human rights > Property rights.
    There were no knives, no fires, no boxes of matches, and no-one was in the actually running anyone over in any car.

    Hmm, not me whose talking non-sense.

    @coolbeans. People get annoyed when others interfere with their property (including thumping their car). It's merely a fact of life, not my opinion.


  • #126
    clever_name
    Registered Users Posts: 462 ✭✭clever_name


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Now this is the fuzzy bit, so do try to keep up: Interfering with someone else's property may cause them to get annoyed with you.
    n97 mini wrote: »
    T
    @coolbeans. People get annoyed when others interfere with their property (including thumping their car). It's merely a fact of life, not my opinion.


    So if a driver pulls into a cyclists lane and interferes with them and their property you can agree with the cyclist for being annoyed?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    droidus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    n97 mini wrote: »
    There were no knives, no fires, no boxes of matches, and no-one was in the actually running anyone over in any car.

    Hmm, not me whose talking non-sense.

    @coolbeans. People get annoyed when others interfere with their property (including thumping their car). It's merely a fact of life, not my opinion.

    You made a blanket statement:
    no-one has the right to interfere with anyone else's property.

    I outlined three situations (of many) where you would have the right to interfere with someone's property in order to protect your own safety or the safety of others.

    That is exactly what the cyclist in the video was doing when he was almost run over by the taxi.

    Can you understand this or do we need to get the crayons out?


  • #128
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    clever_name wrote: »
    So if a driver pulls into a cyclists lane and interferes with them and their property you can agree with the cyclist for being annoyed?
    Of course. And I think the cyclist had a right to be annoyed. However, no-one actually touched his bicycle.
    droidus wrote:
    That is exactly what the cyclist in the video was doing when he was almost run over by the taxi.
    He didn't run over anyone. Fact.
    The taxi driver saw the cyclist. Fact.
    The taxi driver drove badly. Fact.
    The cyclist thumped the roof of the taxi. Fact.


  • #129
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    n97 mini wrote: »
    People get annoyed when others interfere with their property. I'm not defending it, it's merely a fact of life.

    This "it's merely a fact of life" point of view can defend just about any road rage.

    Using your logic, if somebody walking/cycling/driving feels they are being endangered by a motorist/cyclist/pedestrian then it's just "merely a fact of life" that they could assault the person.

    n97 mini wrote: »
    Of course. And I think the cyclist had a right to be annoyed. However, no-one actually touched his bicycle.


    He didn't run over anyone. Fact.
    The taxi driver saw the cyclist. Fact.
    The taxi driver drove badly. Fact.
    The cyclist thumped the roof of the taxi. Fact.

    Your posts show that you seem to think that human life is less important than property.


  • #130
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    monument wrote: »
    it's just "merely a fact of life" that they could assault the person.
    Now here people go again making up stuff. People got annoyed in that video, but no-one assaulted anyone.
    monument wrote: »
    Your posts show that you seem to think that human life is less important than property.
    Nope, they don't.

    This thread would win awards for all the great imaginations on it making up stuff.


  • #131
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    Cyclist on Joe Duffy now complaining about bad driving on the Rock Rd.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Cyclist on Joe Duffy now complaining about bad driving on the Rock Rd.

    And for balance a motorcyclist now on complaining that cyclists are a "law unto themselves" and that from his observations "only 1 out of 50 don't break red lights".


  • #133
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,034 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    n97 mini wrote: »
    And for balance a motorcyclist now on complaining that cyclists are a "law unto themselves" and that from his observations "only 1 out of 50 don't break red lights".

    Cross-posted this to another thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76608937&postcount=1 . People seem totally oblivious to non-cyclists breaking red lights with abandon. The only difference I see between cyclists and motorists is that when I stop at a red light in a car, any wannabe light breakers in cars behind me are physically stopped from doing so, whereas when I stop at a red light on the bike, wannabe light breakers on bikes just go around me.


  • #134
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    Yeah, several more callers complained about cyclists breaking red lights with abandon. Pointing out the irony of wearing safety gear while doing it.

    One guy, also a cyclist himself, observed 11 cyclists in a row breaking a red light over the period of a just a few minutes.


  • #135
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Now here people go again making up stuff. People got annoyed in that video, but no-one assaulted anyone.

    What part of what you just quoted did I make up? :confused:

    n97 mini wrote: »
    Nope, they don't.

    This thread would win awards for all the great imaginations on it making up stuff.

    You're shocking overly concerned with what the cyclists in both cases have done when one driver has been found guilty of harm with intent and the other driver came very close to harming the other cyclist.

    With the main topic you're far too overly concerned by a cyclist holding up a bus or touching the wipers on the bus over the the bus driver nearly hitting somebody and then using the bus as a weapon against them.

    Same with the video of the taxi -- you're overly concerned with the cyclist "slapping" the side taxi when the only reason he was able to do so was that the taxi was trying to occupy the same space as the cyclist -- ie run him over!

    You really need to get some perspective.

    n97 mini wrote: »
    Yeah, several more callers complained about cyclists breaking red lights with abandon. Pointing out the irony of wearing safety gear while doing it.

    One guy, also a cyclist himself, observed 11 cyclists in a row breaking a red light over the period of a just a few minutes.

    It's so true that it is hugely ironic that cyclists who feel the need to wear such safety gear then sail through red lights. You won't get any argument on that one from me -- It's a point I make often of the cycling board!

    But it's quite sad that they and you can complain about cyclists with blinkers on for what motorists do daily "with abandon". Ironic? No, it's more worrying that motorists are so blind.


  • #136
    doozerie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,830 ✭✭✭doozerie


    n97 mini wrote:
    Now here people go again making up stuff. People got annoyed in that video, but no-one assaulted anyone.

    You sure about that? According to Irish law the taxi driver assaulted the cyclist:
    It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to use or engage in any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.

    He ticked all three boxes of using threatening, abusive, *and* insulting words (he's quite the over-achiever, his parents must be proud) and that's without taking into account whether cutting off the cyclist with his cab was an offence too. Under UK law threatening behaviour might fall under the definition of common assault but I'll leave you to check on that, 'cos if you can take the time to listen to Joe Duffy you must surely be looking for something constructive to do.


  • #137
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    And he looked at him in a funny way too. Or are we scraping the bottom of the barrel now?


  • #138
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    monument wrote: »
    But it's quite sad that they and you can complain about cyclists with blinkers on for what motorists do daily "with abandon". Ironic?
    So we can only complain about cyclists if we complain about motorists aswell? Do you not think pedestrians will feel left out?


  • #139
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    n97 mini wrote: »
    monument wrote: »
    But it's quite sad that they and you can complain about cyclists with blinkers on for what motorists do daily "with abandon". Ironic?
    So we can only complain about cyclists if we complain about motorists aswell? Do you not think pedestrians will feel left out?

    Sure, you can rant about what you want, but I just think it's very sad that you and others have blinkers on so much that you are obsessed with just the wrongs of one type of road user.

    But hey, you have close to zero perspective give how important you think window wipers and slapping a car etc are compared to human life.


  • #140
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    monument wrote: »
    it's very sad that you and others have blinkers on so much that you are obsessed with just the wrongs of one type of road user.
    Eh, you're confusing me with someone else. I pointed out that both parties were in the wrong. Including the cyclists, persecution complex and all.


  • #141
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    n97 mini wrote: »
    monument wrote: »
    it's very sad that you and others have blinkers on so much that you are obsessed with just the wrongs of one type of road user.
    Eh, you're confusing me with someone else. I pointed out that both parties were in the wrong. Including the cyclists, persecution complex and all.

    No, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

    The context in this thread is a bus driver using a bus as a weapon and a taxi driver
    dangerously cutting off a cyclist, and yet still you're talking nonsence about comparably tiny things the cyclists did and a "persecution complex".

    Again: You have close to zero perspective give how important you think window wipers and slapping a car etc are compared to human life.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    monument wrote: »
    No, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

    The context in this thread is a bus driver using a bus as a weapon and a taxi driver
    dangerously cutting off a cyclist, and yet still you're talking nonsence about comparably tiny things the cyclists did and a "persecution complex".

    Again: You have close to zero perspective give how important you think window wipers and slapping a car etc are compared to human life.

    Oh Lord, how many times. If someone done wrong they done wrong.


  • #143
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Oh Lord, how many times. If someone done wrong they done wrong.

    No. It's not that simple.

    Knocking on a car or pulling window wipers is in no way comparable to using a bus or a car as weapons, intended or not. They are so much so not comparable that the minor "wrongs" are not worth talking about in the context of using buses and cars as weapons.

    But, hey, some people put little value on human life and put it on the same level as touching cars and wIndow wipers!


  • #144
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    monument wrote: »
    Knocking on a car or pulling window wipers is in no way comparable to using a bus or a car as weapons, intended or not
    No-one said it was, but wrong is still wrong.


  • #145
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    n97 mini wrote: »
    monument wrote: »
    Knocking on a car or pulling window wipers is in no way comparable to using a bus or a car as weapons, intended or not
    No-one said it was, but wrong is still wrong.

    You did by the importance you have given these "wrongs".

    They are not worth mentioning in the context of human life being threatened by drivers using a bus and a car like weapons.


  • #146
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    monument wrote: »
    You did by the importance you have given these "wrongs".
    It is important to accept that actions have consequences.


  • #147
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    monument wrote: »
    Grow up and answer the question.

    I would encourage mature discussion, but I suspect it would make me look like a hypocrite.


  • #148
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    n97 mini wrote: »
    monument wrote: »
    You did by the importance you have given these "wrongs".
    It is important to accept that actions have consequences.

    Yes, indeed, but if you fart it it far from reasonable to expect the big ban to happen again.

    But if you nearly crush a cyclist you should expect them to bang on the side of your car as a warning that you are putting their life in danger. And it goes both ways...

    If you don't like the idea of someone banging on the side of your car you should not try to run people over because actions have consequences!

    And if a motorist tries -- inadvertently or not -- to kill a cyclist then your "actions have consequences" logic comes into play on a larger scale and the motorist might get hurt. Will you be defending the cyclist after that happens?


  • #149
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,912 ✭✭✭galwaycyclist


    n97 mini wrote: »
    It is important to accept that actions have consequences.

    I remember an incident from when I was a child growing up in a certain West African country. A soldier got killed by accident trying to jump off a moving bus. So his mates took the driver off the bus and beat him to death.

    I cannot shake the feeling that you would applaud their actions.


  • #150
    droidus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    Give it up fellas, hes immune to logic.

    On the plus side, he probably isn't capable of driving a car so you dont need to fear meeting him on your commute.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    happyman81
    Closed Accounts Posts: 315 ✭✭happyman81


    Psycholists seem to think that once they hop their bikes, they suddenly become invincible. The amount of times I have seen them trying to intimidate one tonne steel objects with wheels...

    And don't talk to me about them cycling on footpaths. I had to push a guy off his bike a couple of weeks back because he was hurtling towards me. Madness.


Advertisement