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

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

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    droidus
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #123
    coolbeans
    Registered Users Posts: 3,036 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #124
    n97 mini
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #125
    n97 mini
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #127
    droidus
    Registered Users 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?


  • Options
    #128
    n97 mini
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #129
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 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.


  • Options
    #130
    n97 mini
    Registered Users 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.


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


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    n97 mini
    Registered Users 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".


  • Options
    #133
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,892 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #134
    n97 mini
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #135
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 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.


  • Options
    #136
    doozerie
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #137
    n97 mini
    Registered Users 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?


  • Options
    #138
    n97 mini
    Registered Users 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?


  • Options
    #139
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 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.


  • Options
    #140
    n97 mini
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #141
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 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
  • Options
    #142
    n97 mini
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #143
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 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!


  • Options
    #144
    n97 mini
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #145
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 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.


  • Options
    #146
    n97 mini
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #147
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,245 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #148
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 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?


  • Options
    #149
    galwaycyclist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,913 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #150
    droidus
    Registered Users 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
  • Options
    #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