Driver takes revenge on 50 cyclists.

Explosive_Cornflake

And you thought our roads were bad.
Furious driver takes out 50-strong cycle pack
EDIT: Didn't see the date on this. Probably was posted before, If so delete it.

uberwolf

eh.

OMG.

luckat

Hopefully the costs he has to pay for the injuries he caused will prevent him ever being able to afford to drive again.

cyclopath2001

Explosive_Cornflake wrote: »

EDIT: Didn't see the date on this. Probably was posted before, If so delete it.

It was posted over in 'Motors' last month, to somewhat mixed reactions.

In a similar incident, closer to home, there were fatalities in the highly popular 'MaraCycle' near Newry, some years ago. The driver was either doped, drunk or both.

Joe Malone

Luckily in Ireland the Rules of the road are different and cyclists are required to cycle in single file if they are inconveniencing or obstructing other traffic as per the current edition of the ROTR so this situation should not occur here if cyclists obey the rules

Raam

Joe Malone wrote: »

...so this situation should not occur here if cyclists obey the rules

It shouldn't happen, period.

Joe Malone

Raam wrote: »

It shouldn't happen, period.

I agree, however, if cyclists cycled in single file when inconveniencing other road users, it wouldn't have happened. Obviously the motorist in this case shouldn't have done what is alleged to have happened but EQUALLY he/she would not have been driven to such an extreme if the cyclists had shown a bit of courtesy (in the case of australian law) or just obeyed the ROTR in the case of a cycling event in Ireland.

Raam

Joe Malone wrote: »

I agree, however, if cyclists cycled in single file when inconveniencing other road users, it wouldn't have happened. Obviously the motorist in this case shouldn't have done what is alleged to have happened but EQUALLY he/she would not have been driven to such an extreme if the cyclists had shown a bit of courtesy (in the case of australian law) or just obeyed the ROTR in the case of a cycling event in Ireland.

It's not the cyclists fault that he caused an accident.

cyclopath2001

Joe Malone wrote: »

Luckily in Ireland the Rules of the road are different and cyclists are required to cycle in single file if they are inconveniencing or obstructing other traffic as per the current edition of the ROTR so this situation should not occur here if cyclists obey the rules

The rule stated in the ROTR in this case is an inaccurate interpretation of the underlying regulations.

Cyclists are permitted to ride two abreast at all times unless overtaking other traffic.

Joe Malone

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

The rule stated in the ROTR in this case is an inaccurate interpretation of the underlying regulations.

Cyclists are permitted to ride two abreast at all times unless overtaking other traffic.

hold up there cyclopath, take up your interpretation with the Road Safety Authority if you think there is something wrong with the Rules of the Road. As a road user we all all required to obey the Rules of the Road and not some interpretation of it or some a la carte version. The ROTR clearly states that cyclists must travel in single file in heavy traffic or if to do otherwise would inconvenience other road users.
My point being that if cyclists obey the Irish rules of the road the circumstances whch led to the incident referred to in this thread would not happen! (Occasionally Ireland leads the way in common sense - this being one and plastic bag rules being the other that springs to mind)

cyclopath2001

Joe Malone wrote: »

As a road user we all all required to obey the Rules of the Road

That is not correct. We are obliged to obey the road traffic regulations, not the contents of the RoTR.

If you believe that cycling two abreast and getting in your way constitutes an offence, quote the relevant statute and not an interpretation (such as the RoTR).

Joe Malone

Do you condone ignoring the Rules of the Road?

cyclopath2001

Joe Malone wrote: »

Do you condone ignoring the Rules of the Road?

Everyone should obey the law, don't you agree?

niceonetom

Joe Malone wrote: »

I agree, however, if cyclists cycled in single file when inconveniencing other road users, it wouldn't have happened. Obviously the motorist in this case shouldn't have done what is alleged to have happened but EQUALLY he/she would not have been driven to such an extreme if the cyclists had shown a bit of courtesy (in the case of australian law) or just obeyed the ROTR in the case of a cycling event in Ireland.

"driven to such an extreme"? are you kidding? you're one of these "she was asking for it cos she was wearing a short skirt" types aren't you?

Joe Malone

niceonetom wrote: »

"driven to such an extreme"? are you kidding? you're one of these "she was asking for it cos she was wearing a short skirt" types aren't you?

??? NO - how dare you make such an inference!

Joe Malone

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Everyone should obey the law, don't you agree?

Yes. The law requires all road users to obey the rules of the road. If you think the rules of the road are wrong then I suggest you take it up with the CEO of the RSA or indeed the Minister for Transport - in the mean time please be sure to cycle in single file in heavy traffic as required.

niceonetom

how very dare i? well, like this really...

you are essentially placing a portion of the blame on the victims here. they inconvenienced him (shock bloody horror) so he hospitalised them. incredibly lucky he was too, as this would very easily have been a case of manslaughter. and you apparently seem to think that he was "driven" to this, i.e. it wasn't 100% his fault, his responsibility and his crime. poor man, those nasty cyclists were just begging to be attacked, riding around like people or something.

uberwolf

Joe Malone wrote: »

Yes. The law requires all road users to obey the rules of the road. If you think the rules of the road are wrong then I suggest you take it up with the CEO of the RSA or indeed the Minister for Transport - in the mean time please be sure to cycle in single file in heavy traffic as required.

I'd be obliged if you could direct me to this rule.

Joe Malone

uberwolf wrote: »

I'd be obliged if you could direct me to this rule.

No problem. Its set out on the table on page 161

Joe Malone

niceonetom wrote: »

how very dare i? well, like this really...

you are essentially placing a portion of the blame on the victims here. they inconvenienced him (shock bloody horror) so he hospitalised them. incredibly lucky he was too, as this would very easily have been a case of manslaughter. and you apparently seem to think that he was "driven" to this, i.e. it wasn't 100% his fault, his responsibility and his crime. poor man, those nasty cyclists were just begging to be attacked, riding around like people or something.

Your inference was that of condoning rape and I find that completely unacceptable. Withdraw it

niceonetom

my inference is that you have difficulty identifying which party is to blame for a criminal act.

i stand by it.

cyclopath2001

Joe Malone wrote: »

No problem. Its set out on the table on page 161

That's not a legal reference.

Joe Malone wrote: »

Yes. The law requires all road users to obey the rules of the road.

As stated previously, it is the Acts and Statutory Instruments that people must obey. These are the real 'Rules of the Road'.

Joe Malone wrote: »

- in the mean time please be sure to cycle in single file in heavy traffic as required.

By what law, exactly? Year, SI number and paragraph please.

uberwolf

http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_cycling-safely.html

the summary guide didn't give that much to me.

I'm not a militant cyclist by any means, but I expect you're no kind of cyclist so let me give you a brief synopsis of my life on a bike.

By various times I have

Had a bus graze the length of its chassis of my elbow whilst overtaking me
Had a truck driver stick his finger up at me after I'd dived from the road to avoid his rear tyre crushing me as it travelled over where I would have been (he had the opportunity to do this because I caught him at lights 30 seconds later)
Been in a group of cyclists that had to slam on because a car who thought they could overtake us realised half way they couldn't, and just veered in, on the basis that we would do less damage than the car on coming.
Had to take all manner of evasive action


What I'm trying to do is establish some credibility for myself on this topic.

I believe that cyclist are better off with pissed of drivers far up the road from them than stuck behind them. Cyclists should, and now of these new rules, obliged to let faster traffic past them.

I believe cyclists are better qualified to make that decision then drivers - given both their likely greater experience and advantageous vantage point.

So cyclists are not required by the document you cite, or any law to cycle single file. If it safe for them to do so by their judgement, they should allow cars past them - but that's etiquette only.

The actions of that driver were abhorrent.

Regarding cycling events in Ireland, the term is a rolling road closure. The implications of that are fairly clear.

Joe Malone

take it up with the RSA and/or the Minister - we all have to obey the rules of the road in their entirety not some ala carte menu like you seem to think

Joe Malone

niceonetom wrote: »

my inference is that you have difficulty identifying which party is to blame for a criminal act.

i stand by it.

You suggested that I take the side of a rapist - that is completely unacceptable and I will report the comment if you continue to stand by it

Joe Malone

uberwolf wrote: »

http://www.rotr.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_cycling-safely.html

the summary guide didn't give that much to me.

I'm not a militant cyclist by any means, but I expect you're no kind of cyclist so let me give you a brief synopsis of my life on a bike.

By various times I have

Had a bus graze the length of its chassis of my elbow whilst overtaking me
Had a truck driver stick his finger up at me after I'd dived from the road to avoid his rear tyre crushing me as it travelled over where I would have been (he had the opportunity to do this because I caught him at lights 30 seconds later)
Been in a group of cyclists that had to slam on because a car who thought they could overtake us realised half way they couldn't, and just veered in, on the basis that we would do less damage than the car on coming.
Had to take all manner of evasive action


What I'm trying to do is establish some credibility for myself on this topic.

I believe that cyclist are better off with pissed of drivers far up the road from them than stuck behind them. Cyclists should, and now of these new rules, obliged to let faster traffic past them.

I believe cyclists are better qualified to make that decision then drivers - given both their likely greater experience and advantageous vantage point.

So cyclists are not required by the document you cite, or any law to cycle single file. If it safe for them to do so by their judgement, they should allow cars past them - but that's etiquette only.

The actions of that driver were abhorrent.

Regarding cycling events in Ireland, the term is a rolling road closure. The implications of that are fairly clear.

Did you read the rules of the road pg 161 as pointed out? The level of ignorance of the rule on this point is startling

Vélo

Jesus Joe will you calm down!

uberwolf

Joe Malone wrote: »

Did you read the rules of the road pg 161 as pointed out? The level of ignorance of the rule on this point is startling

the rule states that 'must cycle single file... endanger... other traffic'. On endangerment explicitly, I believe that no law would ask someone to endanger themselves so as not to inconvenience someone else. So safety is the trump card in this discussion.

I can see no circumstance, save blocking an ambulance, where cycling two a breast would endanger other traffic. And even if it did endanger other traffic, the law can not request someone to endanger themselves to avoid endangering someone else, and instinct would prevent it anyway.

I can see many circumstances where dropping to single file would endanger the cyclists. You'll be gratified to know that I don't think cyclists should inconvenience other road users, but not to the point where they endanger themselves.

So rather than call me or my post ignorant, you could ask for further explanation.

So if cyclists don't automatically reduce to single file, it is often because they have decided it is not safe for a car to overtake them in that situation.

Cycling single file encourages people to overtake when they might not otherwise. As I tried to show in my first post, I have enough experience to be able to speak with authority on the perils of cycling. I often make myself bigger on the road than needed, to prevent a bus squeezing by me if I don't think it's safe.






I don't think I'm being coherent. If it is safe for themselves, then cyclists should move in. The rules you cited, nor any law of the land, can demand that anyone place themselves in danger. So if it's not safe then there is no absolute requirement. Safety is objective, and I think cyclists should be given the benefit of any doubt, as they are typically more experienced and safety conscious than other road users in the suburban, quasi rural circumstance under discussion.

Joe Malone

Uberwolf - you don't seem to have read the full contents of the table on pg 161.
there are two circumstances outlined in the rules which require cyclists to cycle in single file
1. being where not to do so would obstruct, endanger etc - this on its own would be enough for most people to realise that the letter as well as the spirit of the ROTR require cyclists to allow the traffic to flow and not cause unnecessary pile up of traffic behind them.
2. - just in case the circumstances outlined above leave room for doubt, the second circumstance is simple - cyclists must cycle in single file in heavy traffic!

They are the rules of the road as published by the Road Saftery Authority by the authority vested in it by the Minister for Transport in the Road Safety Authority Act 2006

kona

Joe Malone wrote: »

I agree, however, if cyclists cycled in single file when inconveniencing other road users, it wouldn't have happened. Obviously the motorist in this case shouldn't have done what is alleged to have happened but EQUALLY he/she would not have been driven to such an extreme if the cyclists had shown a bit of courtesy (in the case of australian law) or just obeyed the ROTR in the case of a cycling event in Ireland.

inconvieniencing???

your having a laugh,

if we all had you interpritation, cyclists could take this stance:

motorists should pi$$ off the roads because the majority are a extremley dangerous inconvienience to cyclists.

parking in cycle lanes anybody??
lack of indication?
driving too close???

joe you will get more support over on motors such as the response to your, thread about the cyclists causing the all mighty motorist a "inconvienience" while doing a weekend event on a SUNDAY afternoon, surrounded by emergency vehicles and sanction by a supt.Garda.

maybe next time a busy monday at 8am on a busy N road???with no permission or authorisation?? If we are going to inconvienience you lot in your air conditioned tin cans we may as well do it properley

FruitLover

Aquinas73 wrote: »

Jesus Joe will you calm down!

I'm afraid that would probably be impossible. As you may be aware, the internets are Serious Business.

Joe Malone

kona wrote: »

inconvieniencing???

your having a laugh,

if we all had you interpritation, cyclists could take this stance:

motorists should pi$$ off the roads because the majority are a extremley dangerous inconvienience to cyclists.

parking in cycle lanes anybody??
lack of indication?
driving too close???

joe you will get more support over on motors such as the response to your, thread about the cyclists causing the all mighty motorist a "inconvienience" while doing a weekend event on a SUNDAY afternoon, surrounded by emergency vehicles and sanction by a supt.Garda.

maybe next time a busy monday at 8am on a busy N road???with no permission or authorisation?? If we are going to inconvienience you lot in your air conditioned tin cans we may as well do it properley

Was wondering when the mirror bashing Kona would arrive to save the day and give the evil motorist "what for". Any fresh criminal damage to boast about Kona?

Studoc

Joe Malone wrote: »

Uberwolf - you don't seem to have read the full contents of the table on pg 161.
there are two circumstances outlined in the rules which require cyclists to cycle in single file
1. being where not to do so would obstruct, endanger etc - this on its own would be enough for most people to realise that the letter as well as the spirit of the ROTR require cyclists to allow the traffic to flow and not cause unnecessary pile up of traffic behind them.
2. - just in case the circumstances outlined above leave room for doubt, the second circumstance is simple - cyclists must cycle in single file in heavy traffic!

They are the rules of the road as published by the Road Saftery Authority by the authority vested in it by the Minister for Transport in the Road Safety Authority Act 2006

Oh no, sweet Jesus. This guy has a bee in his bonnet about cyclists, may have lost a girlfriend/boyfriend to one etc.

kona

Joe Malone wrote: »

Was wondering when the mirror bashing Kona would arrive to save the day and give the evil motorist "what for". Any fresh criminal damage to boast about Kona?

no but some **** head MOTORIST put a nice dent in my car door.
another MOTORIST almost crashed head on into me today because it seemed to be a inconvienience to drive on the left.:o:eek:
was it you?? sure the ROTR seem to a inconvinience.



wing mirrors smashing its not crimanal damage, not my fault motorists force me off the road,and my hand gets hit;) even while one abreast.

motorists are a inconvienience, the cheek of them, turning left:rolleyes::D:D

Tar.Aldarion

Prison I hope.

petethedrummer

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/si/0294.html


PART IV. CYCLE TRAFFIC.

Driving two abreast

29.—(1) A pedal cyclist shall not, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists (and then only if to do so will not endanger other traffic or pedestrians) drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than two pedal cycles driving abreast.


(2) Pedal cyclists on a roadway shall cycle in single file when overtaking other traffic.


...thats all it says in the statute book about riding two abreast.

kenmc

So I would read that then as
"Cyclists may cycle two abreast unless overtaking other traffic, when they must do so in single file".
Q.E.D.

cyclopath2001

Joe Malone wrote: »

They are the rules of the road as published by the Road Saftery Authority by the authority vested in it by the Minister for Transport in the Road Safety Authority Act 2006

Let's be clear, it is not law or statute. It's a useful guide which contains some harmless inaccuracies, one of which has misled you. Nobody is obliged to obey the literal contents of that book, but they must obey the relevant laws and statutes. Your ignorance of the law and of my reasoned counter-arguments is not helping the discussion.

As to your assertion that cyclists should give way to motorists in heavy traffic, Did you know that the overtaking regulations effectively prohibit cars overtaking cyclists in heavy traffic, if to do so would cause inconvenience? This means that overtaking a cyclist and pulling back into a line of traffic, a short distance in front of a cyclist, obstructing his/her path, is illegal.

cyclopath2001

Joe Malone wrote: »

They are the rules of the road as published by the Road Saftery Authority by the authority vested in it by the Minister for Transport in the Road Safety Authority Act 2006

Let's be clear, it is not law or statute. It's a useful guide which contains some harmless inaccuracies, one of which has misled you. Nobody is obliged to obey the actual contents of that book, but they must obey the relevant laws and statutes. Your ignorance of the law and of my reasoned counter-arguments is not helping the discussion.

As to your assertion that cyclists should give way to motorists in heavy traffic, Did you know that the overtaking regulations effectively prohibit cars overtaking cyclists in heavy traffic, if to do so would cause inconvenience? This means that overtaking a cyclist and pulling back into a line of traffic, a short distance in front of a cyclist, obstructing his/her path, is illegal.

oobydooby

Joe, did you see what this thread was actually about? And you persist with this childish and irrational rant against cyclists, despite this context? Why don't you start a new thread instead of linking your (flawed and beaten) arguments to such an almost tragic incident as described at the start of this thread?

Why don't you get a bike and go for a nice spin on such a lovely day? Very good to see things from the other side. Also it's more healthy than being angry in front of a computer on a lovely weekend. Or being angry stuck in a line of traffic. Keep safe.

Cabaal

Joe Malone wrote: »

Uberwolf - you don't seem to have read the full contents of the table on pg 161.
there are two circumstances outlined in the rules which require cyclists to cycle in single file
1. being where not to do so would obstruct, endanger etc - this on its own would be enough for most people to realise that the letter as well as the spirit of the ROTR require cyclists to allow the traffic to flow and not cause unnecessary pile up of traffic behind them.
2. - just in case the circumstances outlined above leave room for doubt, the second circumstance is simple - cyclists must cycle in single file in heavy traffic!

They are the rules of the road as published by the Road Saftery Authority by the authority vested in it by the Minister for Transport in the Road Safety Authority Act 2006

I'm sorry but a car being stuck behind cyclists for a min or two is not endangering anyone...unless of course the driver doesn't like being slowed down to 40km/hour and takes action that causes danger....in which case its the drivers fault

In relation to the news story, only one car was involved and there is no mention to say there was traffic being held up in anyway, as such the driver is 100% in the wrong based on all available facts and information regarding this story.

You Sir look like a bit of a muppet in relation to your rants regarding the topic/newstory involved in this thread

uberwolf

Joe Malone wrote: »

Uberwolf - you don't seem to have read the full contents of the table on pg 161.
there are two circumstances outlined in the rules which require cyclists to cycle in single file
1. being where not to do so would obstruct, endanger etc - this on its own would be enough for most people to realise that the letter as well as the spirit of the ROTR require cyclists to allow the traffic to flow and not cause unnecessary pile up of traffic behind them.
2. - just in case the circumstances outlined above leave room for doubt, the second circumstance is simple - cyclists must cycle in single file in heavy traffic!

They are the rules of the road as published by the Road Saftery Authority by the authority vested in it by the Minister for Transport in the Road Safety Authority Act 2006

As cyclopath has pointed out, these are not requirements in law. Someone can only be sanctioned by the law, and not rules. A Garda may interpret failure to follow the rules of the road as dangerous or unsafe behaviour an prosecute on that basis. I have been trying to outline why I don't think the behaviour is unsafe in many circumstances.

I do think the rules represent a useful etiquette. In either case, I see no requirement for me to pull into single file where I believe such an act would endanger myself. Endanger me how? By encouraging a motorist to overtake me where it is unsafe for him to do so. Can I decide whats safe for him to do? Somewhat. The motorist is ultimately responsible for his/her own actions, but I am in a position to discourage any maneuver, and am unlikely to be prosecuted for trying to protect myself.



I got your reported post. I'm not doing anything about it, and here's why. You , intentionally or otherwise, did suggest that the actions of the motorist in the OP was in some small way excusable because he was driven to it. The actions of the cyclists triggered the assault. The parallel was reasonable.

Obviously the man in this case shouldn't have done what is alleged to have happened but EQUALLY he/she would not have been driven to such an extreme if the girl had worn a longer skirt

Joe Malone

WOW! What a parallel. Wearing a short skirt is provocation in your world. I think you hit rock bottom and brought in the kango hammer!
Please re-read my post. I did not condone the drivers actions, in fact I stated that it was wrong. I merely stated that this would be unlikely to occur in Ireland if cyclists followed the rules of the road. The other poster made an outrageous inference which you seem to condone and since then the posts have revolved around rules of the road versus statute!
In my opinion, only the most unreasonable of road users would choose to ignore the rules of the road because they don't suit their agenda.

daymobrew

It is time to close this thread. We're going in circles.