quick (and potentially ridiculous) legal question

ullu

I was at a dual carriageway junction earlier waiting to turn right. The junction in question has a filter light system. I was behind the line, having a sip of water when a car approached me from behind at speed and almost clipped me as it took its position in front of me. I went up to this chap's window and in what was probably an undiplomatic manner explained why he was at fault.

When I was finished, his response was "Well you know you shouldn't be drinking while on a bike, don't you?" I asked him to repeat himself in case I had misheard what he had said initially but no, he was adamant that cyclists are not allowed to drink "fluid" while operating their vehicle.

Was this guy talking through his considerable hoop or did he have any sort of point? I would dismiss it as ridiculous but he seemed perfectly calm and matter of fact about it.

kenmc

rediculous.

uberwolf

lol. that is all.

You are probably expected to remain in control of your machine at all times, drinking or otherwise.

But seeing as you were standing on a public road, the idea that your doing something 'illegal' somehow merited assault. Because if he didn't do it by accident, then he did it on purpose.

Irish_Army01

Cyclist are second class citizens on the roads in my opinion..I don't how many times I had to break this week to avoid a collision :mad:

emtroche

No driver has ever crashed after spilling a cup of coffee all over themselves!!

You should've squirted him with the bottle and said "Well that must be why bikes have bottle holders!"

Lumen

ullu wrote: »

he was adamant that cyclists are not allowed to drink "fluid" while operating their vehicle.

AFAIK, there are surprisingly strict (and somewhat unreasonable) rules on what you can do at the wheel of a car, even if you are not "driving". You only have to be in control of steering and propulsion, or some such wording. For instance, I believe if you are parked at the side of the road with the engine running, even if in neutral with the handbrake on, you're not supposed to be texting, drinking, fiddling with sat sav etc.

The same would apply to cycling, if bikes weighed hundreds of kilos and had an engine.

It's easy to see how someone who was extremely hard of thinking could get confused about this.

I think I'd be inclined step down to his level and respond with an "itchy belm".

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Irish_Army01 wrote: »

I don't how many times I had to break this week to avoid a collision :mad:

Everytime you approach red traffic lights?

Irish_Army01

Sean_K wrote: »

Everytime you approach red traffic lights?

I'm not sure if that is a smart comment but......I'll explain.Coming to a junctions where I have right of way and cars (and a truck this week) pulling out..And its only because I'm a cyclist.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Irish_Army01 wrote: »

I'm not sure if that is a smart comment but......I'll explain.Coming to a junctions where I have right of way and cars (and a truck this week) pulling out..And its only because I'm a cyclist.

Sorry dude I thought you were speaking as a motorist, saying that cyclists are second-class citizens and complaining about having to brake to avoid crashing into them:p

Makes a bit more sense now

NeilMcEoigheann

saw my commuter buddy nearly go under a hiace van on friday
and then today as i was cycling up past the hellfire wood, a car approached from behind and blarped the horn, now the road there is praticurally ****e from a cycling point of view but as the car past bye i realised it was a driver training car, and the instructor leaned out the window asking me if i thought i was funny,
and a funny shouting incident where afterwards i stopped next to the car at lights and removed my lock from my back pocket, they were all looking straight ahead ****ting themselves,

NewDubliner

ullu wrote: »

I was at a dual carriageway junction earlier waiting to turn right. The junction in question has a filter light system. I was behind the line, having a sip of water when a car approached me from behind at speed and almost clipped me as it took its position in front of me.

If you were stopped at a stop line, how could the driver pass legally in front of you?

1: Passing a stop line when the lights were red.
2: Illegal overtaking.

He was covering up for his own illegal behaviour.

Cabaal

NewDubliner wrote: »

If you were stopped at a stop line, how could the driver pass legally in front of you?

1: Passing a stop line when the lights were red.
2: Illegal overtaking.

He was covering up for his own illegal behaviour.

sound like it, only law I know of with cycling and drink is you can't be drunk while cycling,

TimAllen

NeilMcEoigheann wrote: »

saw my commuter buddy nearly go under a hiace van on friday
and then today as i was cycling up past the hellfire wood, a car approached from behind and blarped the horn, now the road there is praticurally ****e from a cycling point of view but as the car past bye i realised it was a driver training car, and the instructor leaned out the window asking me if i thought i was funny,
and a funny shouting incident where afterwards i stopped next to the car at lights and removed my lock from my back pocket, they were all looking straight ahead ****ting themselves,

Funny? You have a twisted sense of humour.
What I find funny is that most of the "innocent cyclist" versus "evil motorist" stories on here finish with the "innocent cyclist" engaging in some pseudo threatening pose (and usually involving a lock) and the evil motorist "****ing" themselves. Overactive imagination Neil, I hope - surely you're not on here confessing to being a socio/pycho path?

Lumen

TimAllen wrote: »

What I find funny is that most of the "innocent cyclist" versus "evil motorist" stories on here finish with the "innocent cyclist" engaging in some pseudo threatening pose

You were much funnier than this in The Santa Clause 3, and that really isn't saying much.

Maybe you need a script writer?

niceonetom

Time Allen, drunk driver and convicted cocaine smuggler, we are grateful for your input.

RobFowl

niceonetom wrote: »

Time Allen, drunk driver and convicted cocaine smuggler, we are grateful for your input.

Full name Timothy Allen Dick

Húrin

ullu wrote: »

I was at a dual carriageway junction earlier waiting to turn right. The junction in question has a filter light system. I was behind the line, having a sip of water when a car approached me from behind at speed and almost clipped me as it took its position in front of me. I went up to this chap's window and in what was probably an undiplomatic manner explained why he was at fault.

When I was finished, his response was "Well you know you shouldn't be drinking while on a bike, don't you?" I asked him to repeat himself in case I had misheard what he had said initially but no, he was adamant that cyclists are not allowed to drink "fluid" while operating their vehicle.

Was this guy talking through his considerable hoop or did he have any sort of point? I would dismiss it as ridiculous but he seemed perfectly calm and matter of fact about it.

Most people seem to try to shoot the messenger if they're caught doing something wrong. It's intended to distract from their wrong to point out that ther other person is also doing something wrong. In this instance the driver was especially desparate!

Just like that time I was stopped by a Garda for going through a red light, and pointed out that he was j-walking.

TimAllen

niceonetom wrote: »

Time Allen, drunk driver and convicted cocaine smuggler, we are grateful for your input.

Nice one Tom, but you are talking about someone else. My name is Tim not Time .... different person entirely:rolleyes:

No view to express on Neil's behaviour? Presumably you condone it!:eek:

Thomas_S_Hunterson

TimAllen wrote: »

No view to express on Neil's behaviour? Presumably you condone it!:eek:

If someone recklessly puts my life in danger I wont stand for it, and I don't think many others would.

The real weapon is the car. Over a thousand kilos versus a U-lock of maybe 1 or 2 kilos!

TimAllen

Sean_K wrote: »

If someone recklessly puts my life in danger I wont stand for it, and I don't think many others would.

The real weapon is the car. Over a thousand kilos versus a U-lock of maybe 1 or 2 kilos!

Well I would be careful carrying around that attitude with you, you (or more likely Neil) might just confront a motorist with an equal disregard for the law and end up wearing the ulock.

At the end of the day most cyclists and motorists get on fine. As a cyclist myself I encounter situations where cars simply dont see me (roundabouts being the most likely place). This is just a fact of life - a bicycle is much harder to see than a car. I dont assume that a driver deliberately tried to kill me when I have a near miss, at the end of the day, I have good reflexes and to be honest so does the driver most of the time.

What really amazes me here are the number of posters who seem to believe that any such incident deserves a major confrontation. At the end of the day, if it happens to you a lot then maybe you should look at your own behaviour on the road rather than deciding to be an asshole and "teach" someone a lesson.

Neil's admitted behaviour leads me to suspect that his general road behaviour was provocative and wouldnt be at all surprised if he's the kind of cyclist that makes it his business to pi$$ off motorists and gets to have regular confrontations.
At the end of the day, any such confrontations can be classified as road rage and you can get arrested for a breach of the peace or worse.
Best advice anyone could get is to leave it out

Lumen

TimAllen wrote: »

I don't assume that a driver deliberately tried to kill me when I have a near miss, at the end of the day, I have good reflexes and to be honest so does the driver most of the time.

Yesterday I saw a driver deliberately swerve into the path of a group of cyclists (us boardsies) who were minding their own business and riding safely and considerately on their side of the road.

This is a fortunately unusual but by no means a unique experience; there have been several similar reported in this forum, which represents a relatively tiny proportion of the Irish cycling population.

You might at least try to understand what this sort of incident does to the mindset of even a reasonably well balanced person, and the sort of attitudes it engenders, rather than wading into every thread on cycle-car incidents (the only threads in this subforum to which I've seen you contribute) with a holier-than-thou attitude.

niceonetom

Lumen wrote: »

Yesterday I saw a driver deliberately swerve into the path of a group of cyclists (us boardsies) who were minding their own business and riding safely and considerately on their side of the road.

This is a fortunately unusual but by no means a unique experience; there have been several similar reported in this forum, which represents a relatively tiny proportion of the Irish cycling population.

You might at least try to understand what this sort of incident does to the mindset of even a reasonably well balanced person, and the sort of attitudes it engenders, rather than wading into every thread on cycle-car incidents (the only threads in this subforum to which I've seen you contribute) with a holier-than-thou attitude.

I was one of that group, and it was a very very nasty moment. Thread in question.

TimAllen wrote: »

No view to express on Neil's behaviour? Presumably you condone it!:eek:

You haven't commented on that driver's behaviour. Presumably you condone it.

TimAllen

Lumen wrote: »

Yesterday I saw a driver deliberately swerve into the path of a group of cyclists (us boardsies) who were minding their own business and riding safely and considerately on their side of the road.

This is a fortunately unusual but by no means a unique experience; there have been several similar reported in this forum, which represents a relatively tiny proportion of the Irish cycling population.

You might at least try to understand what this sort of incident does to the mindset of even a reasonably well balanced person, and the sort of attitudes it engenders, rather than wading into every thread on cycle-car incidents (the only threads in this subforum to which I've seen you contribute) with a holier-than-thou attitude.

Dont confuse my highlighting the illegal, anti-social or criminal behaviour espoused by some posters here (and given tacit approval by many here) as a holier than thou attitude. I highlight the hypocrisy of posters who self righteously highlight various incidents encountered who present themselves as law abiding roadusers - but hypocritically report with glee about their own illegal behaviour.

Lumen

TimAllen wrote: »

Dont confuse my highlighting the illegal, anti-social or criminal behaviour espoused by some posters here (and given tacit approval by many here) as a holier than thou attitude. I highlight the hypocrisy of posters who self righteously highlight various incidents encountered who present themselves as law abiding roadusers - but hypocritically report with glee about their own illegal behaviour.

So why do you only post on these threads? Have you nothing to contribute but negativity? This is no way to change attitudes. You seem to interpret the fact that no-one agrees with you as reinforcement for your belief in everyone else's hypocrisy, rather than your utter inability to constructively engage with your single-issue trolling.

TimAllen

niceonetom wrote: »

I was one of that group, and it was a very very nasty moment. Thread in question.



You haven't commented on that driver's behaviour. Presumably you condone it.

The driver isnt here debating on this thread so I dont see the relevance of making any comment on it, Neil however is on the thread so please dont be so disingeneous.
As a law abiding person I condemn any illegal behaviour - ulock wielding cyclists as well as motorists, you however have avoided any condemnation of a fellow poster who gleefully reported his own illegal and outrageous behaviour on the road and should have been condemned unreservedly by right thinking people.

Lumen

TimAllen wrote: »

right thinking people

That's your problem right there.

TimAllen

Lumen wrote: »

So why do you only post on these threads? Have you nothing to contribute but negativity? This is no way to change attitudes. You seem to interpret the fact that no-one agrees with you as reinforcement for your belief in everyone else's hypocrisy, rather than your utter inability to constructively engage with your single-issue trolling.

When a poster comes on here reporting the illegal behaviour of a motorist there is universal condemnation of the motorist. The utter hypocrisy of no one taking a poster task when they gleefully report their own illegal behaviour speaks volumes.
Highlighting posters who flout the law, and the hypocrisy of the self righteous who give tacit approval of such approval is not trolling unless you are a fascist.

Lumen

TimAllen wrote: »

Highlighting posters who flout the law, and the hypocrisy of the self righteous who give tacit approval of such approval is not trolling unless you are a fascist.

The fact that most people can't be bothered to argue everything they disagree with is normal. The internet is a big place, and we are not immortal.

The "cyclist vs car incident" subject is the metaphorical bridge under which you wait, ready to pounce. You are therefore a troll, regardless of whether you are right.

TimAllen

Lumen wrote: »

The fact that most people can't be bothered to argue everything they disagree with is normal. The internet is a big place, and we are not immortal.

The "cyclist vs car incident" subject is the metaphorical bridge under which you wait, ready to pounce. You are therefore a troll, regardless of whether you are right.

Well remember the first rule of hypocrisy: ignore the substantive issue and just concentrate on character assasination. If you are looking for a troll, try looking in the mirror!

niceonetom

TimAllen wrote: »

The driver isnt here debating on this thread so I dont see the relevance of making any comment on it, Neil however is on the thread so please dont be so disingeneous.

Whether the "offender" posts or not is beside the point - the fact that you feel so very entitled to interpret my silence in a way that validates your (for want of a better word) argument is the point I am drawing attention to. It's plainly ridiculous.

As are you, frankly. Have you nothing to contribute? Even occasionally? Or does trolling under the guise of some sort of moral invigilator seem worthwhile to you?

TimAllen wrote: »

...substantive issue...

what exactly do you think the substantive issue is? Do you feel that every poster in the forum should line up neatly and roundly condemn any other poster who does somethinfg they don't like? Every time? For your edification?

If they don't do you have the right to start blanket accusations of hypocrisy? Becuase that's what you do. That's all you do.

Lumen

TimAllen wrote: »

Well remember the first rule of hypocrisy: ignore the substantive issue and just concentrate on character assasination. If you are looking for a troll, try looking in the mirror!

Is that really the first rule of hypocrisy?

Anyway, I'm not judging your character, I'm judging your behaviour. I'm sure your mother loves you.

NeilMcEoigheann

guys i wasn't going to do anything with the U lock i just wanted to see them **** themselves. and they did and maybe next time they won't scare me as i cycle along...

TimAllen wrote: »

Funny? You have a twisted sense of humour.
What I find funny is that most of the "innocent cyclist" versus "evil motorist" stories on here finish with the "innocent cyclist" engaging in some pseudo threatening pose (and usually involving a lock) and the evil motorist "****ing" themselves. Overactive imagination Neil, I hope - surely you're not on here confessing to being a socio/pycho path?

actually no tim I set about destroying all the panels on the car i smashed the lights and broke the windows, and when i finally scared the occupants out of their vehicle i beat them to with an inch of their lift gouging one of their eyes out with the key then i scrabed a pro cycling message on the road in their blood and left them for dead as i cycled off through a set off red lights on a pedestrian street with glee..... hmm thats prob more likely what happened... yes tim you right Psycho.......

RobFowl

NeilMcEoigheann wrote: »

guys i wasn't going to do anything with the U lock i just wanted to see them **** themselves. and they did and maybe next time they won't scare me as i cycle along...

actually no tim I set about destroying all the panels on the car i smashed the lights and broke the windows, and when i finally scared the occupants out of their vehicle i beat them to with an inch of their lift gouging one of their eyes out with the key then i scrabed a pro cycling message on the road in their blood and left them for dead as i cycled off through a set off red lights on a pedestrian street with glee..... hmm thats prob more likely what happened... yes tim you right Psycho.......

Just been watching the hitcher on sky !!
Tim probably would support his actions if he's been offered a backer :rolleyes:

Húrin

TimAllen wrote: »

When a poster comes on here reporting the illegal behaviour of a motorist there is universal condemnation of the motorist. The utter hypocrisy of no one taking a poster task when they gleefully report their own illegal behaviour speaks volumes.

There is a difference between what is illegal and what is wrong.