Sad B*str*ds

TimAllen

Acoustic wrote: »

happened to me tuesday night with my friend and we were up at kilshane road approaching the ratoath road when this white skyline came up behind us constantly beeping and reving his car , he frightened the life out of me as we didnt even hear him comming and all u hear then is a beep

so i was pissed off , and about 500m away from a cross road and would have loved it if he was at it waiting to cross , i would have put my foot through the window no joke

so look out for a clapped out white skyline in kilbride

Ok, what exactly did he do that warrants a broken window? ... He beeped and revved his car - ok thats not cool but why was he doing this? Were you cycling in a manner which impeded his use of the road? If you were and had no choice in the matter then he was in the wrong BUT, most people, even boyracers, are not completely unreasonable. It was probably his perception that you could have moved in to let him pass (i.e. from two abreast to single file as required by the ROTR), as someone in charge of a slow moving vehicle you are obliged to pull in and let faster traffic progress.
Whilst not condoning what the driver did, it certainly does not warrant criminal damage to property which you seem to be quite "serious" about. And I would seriously question your own road behaviour as this may have been the genesis of the drivers anger with you.

Does it make you feel better to rant on here about your willingness to be a complete scanger and break a car window?

el tel

Was out for a spin with my old man at the weekend (at 68 he's still a monster on the bike) when a Transit Van passed us at a roundabout and the passenger chucked a bottle cap at him. Along the subsequent stretch of 30mph limit carriageway I led him out so that we were in touching distance at the next roundabout but they cut someone up and made off. About 5 mins later we met them stuck at roadworks, we pulled up along side and cue much panic in the van with various apologies and lame excuses from the two young fellas and my old man threatening to knock their proverbials in (dad, you are embarassing me! ). It was left a that, very sorry etc. , they departed and gave us the cursory middle finger when about 100 yards away :rolleyes: You just can't win really.

TimAllen

el tel wrote: »

Was out for a spin with my old man at the weekend (at 68 he's still a monster on the bike) when a Transit Van passed us at a roundabout and the passenger chucked a bottle cap at him. Along the subsequent stretch of 30mph limit carriageway I led him out so that we were in touching distance at the next roundabout but they cut someone up and made off. About 5 mins later we met them stuck at roadworks, we pulled up along side and cue much panic in the van with various apologies and lame excuses from the two young fellas and my old man threatening to knock their proverbials in (dad, you are embarassing me! ). It was left a that, very sorry etc. , they departed and gave us the cursory middle finger when about 100 yards away :rolleyes: You just can't win really.

why would you even attempt to engage with people like that? Just get the reg of the van and report to the gardai. I'm sure they would take more notice of it when the victim was your dad i.e. a 68 year old - not that its "supposed" to make a difference but my perception is that the gardai treat the matter more seriously when a "golden oldie" is involved.
Threatening them brings you and your dad (or maybe just your dad) down to their level and is not to be recommended - you should count yourselves lucky that it wasnt two Mike Tyson types in the van who decided to knock your and your dads proverbials in

Raam

When exactly did this forum appoint a moral guardian?

Lumen

Raam wrote: »

When exactly did this forum appoint a moral guardian?

Friday.

lukester

Lumen wrote: »

In that specific situation you describe, the vehicle just overtaken would likely be following too close.

There are very, very few cases in which you can rear end someone and escape liability. Possibly an example would be if a sports car overtakes a juggernaut and slams on the brakes, and the juggernaut ploughs into the back due to having unavoidably lower braking capacity. I

This very situation occurred to an acquaintance of mine. He was driving a van, and a taxi swerved into the space in front of him in a last minute lane change approaching traffic lights in the city centre, resulting in him hitting the taxi.

It went to court, he argued that the taxi had effectively removed his safe braking zone, and the taxi was found liable.

el tel

TimAllen wrote: »

why would you even attempt to engage with people like that? Just get the reg of the van and report to the gardai. I'm sure they would take more notice of it when the victim was your dad i.e. a 68 year old - not that its "supposed" to make a difference but my perception is that the gardai treat the matter more seriously when a "golden oldie" is involved.
Threatening them brings you and your dad (or maybe just your dad) down to their level and is not to be recommended - you should count yourselves lucky that it wasnt two Mike Tyson types in the van who decided to knock your and your dads proverbials in

Should have added that this was in N.Ireland. I hear what you are saying but my old man finds it cathartic to confront twats like this. It dosen't happen often but he dosen't give a **** about this 'going down to their level' doormat pussy crap. Obviously the threats are literal however you only make them to someone who you know you can intimidate or who you can follow through against should they take their chances. Let's just say he's seen and done a lot of the years and has dealt with plenty of ****wits. I guess ultimately he wanted to show show these would-be tough guys that they are cowards and even though their bravado kicks in as they scury away they might think twice about doing it again.

TimAllen

lukester wrote: »

This very situation occurred to an acquaintance of mine. He was driving a van, and a taxi swerved into the space in front of him in a last minute lane change approaching traffic lights in the city centre, resulting in him hitting the taxi.

It went to court, he argued that the taxi had effectively removed his safe braking zone, and the taxi was found liable.

extremely rare situation. Any chance you might share the case reference, since such a rare judgement is a matter of public record?

TimAllen

Raam wrote: »

When exactly did this forum appoint a moral guardian?

Oh no, here comes the thought police

lukester

TimAllen wrote: »

extremely rare situation. Any chance you might share the case reference, since such a rare judgement is a matter of public record?

Agree, extremely rare, his brief said it would be tough to argue. I have no idea of the case reference, I said it was of an acquaintance of mine, if anyone is genuinely interested in tracking down the case they can PM me for further info to identify it.

TimAllen

el tel wrote: »

Should have added that this was in N.Ireland. I hear what you are saying but my old man finds it cathartic to confront twats like this. It dosen't happen often but he dosen't give a **** about this 'going down to their level' doormat pussy crap. Obviously the threats are literal however you only make them to someone who you know you can intimidate or who you can follow through against should they take their chances. Let's just say he's seen and done a lot of the years and has dealt with plenty of ****wits. I guess ultimately he wanted to show show these would-be tough guys that they are cowards and even though their bravado kicks in as they scury away they might think twice about doing it again.

the flaw in your logic is that you could be dealing with someone who is quite willing to get out of the van and give you a right going over. In NI especially you could be dealing a with tribal undertones - my point is why would you react to lawlessness with lawlessness? It brings you down to their level, leaves you open to criminal prosecution and risks meeting the wrong person at the wrong place at the wrong time. In a civilised society there is no place for such vigilanti behaviour

unionman

*groan*

blorg

googlehead wrote: »

Was out cycling last night when this twat, drove up in behind me and then braked hard trying to throw me off my bike, Then he looked over at his mate laughing, I swear If I caught up with him I would have put my foot in the side of his car.:mad:

@Tim- the OP describes a situation where the overtaking car pulled in and braked DELIBERATELY. A fact you conveniently don't address...

Chips Lovell

TimAllen wrote: »

Oh no, here comes the thought police

In fairness Tim, your usual contributions to this forum are always in the same vein. Cyclist cites some misdemenour by motorist, says they wished they'd knocked his block off/broken their wing mirror/smashed their window, then you come on all outraged about this statement, despite the fact that its people simply venting by saying they wished they'd done these things rather than actually doing them. Given that you usually completely ignore the actual misdemenour, its understandable that it gets peoples backs up, since it comes across as a bit trollish.

el tel

TimAllen wrote: »

the flaw in your logic is that you could be dealing with someone who is quite willing to get out of the van and give you a right going over. In NI especially you could be dealing a with tribal undertones - my point is why would you react to lawlessness with lawlessness? It brings you down to their level, leaves you open to criminal prosecution and risks meeting the wrong person at the wrong place at the wrong time. In a civilised society there is no place for such vigilanti behaviour

Well I'm afraid I have to diddly-darn-doodly-disagree with you there Flanders.

Lumen

Sometimes it's tough to find the righteous path.

Homer Simpson wrote:

Vengeful God, loving God, vengeful God, loving God.

DirkVoodoo

Given that our only recourse seems to be a bit of vigilantism Tim, can you blame most people that when they are nearly "murdered"/"assaulted" with something that when not being used as a form of transport has the capacity to end your life quite quickly, the Gardai take little interest (in a perfect world there would be a total crackdown, any report would be taken seriously, but I guess for now you need to cycle with a witness), so your only comfort is thinking that next time you see that smarmy git and he doesn't have his car to hide in, you will take great satisfaction out of smacking him square in the jaw?????

Lumen

I think Jesus said it best.

Luke 6:27-31. NIV wrote:

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone consistently posts completely arsetarded views in an online forum, add them to your Ignore list.

turbine?

Have just been looking through the Irish rules of the road website:

www.rulesoftheroad.ie

and I can not find anything in the "Rules for Cyclists" section : http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_cycling-safely.html

That states that cyclists should cycle in single file or are obliged to let faster traffic pass.

I do see this:

"Never put a cyclist or motorcyclist at risk and know your duty to be aware of them. They are especially vulnerable if there is a crash."

and this:

"Overtaking

Never cut in front of cyclists or motorcyclists when overtaking them. Give them plenty of space, especially:

* in wet or windy weather,
* when road conditions are icy,
* when they are starting off. Cyclists tend to wobble until they build up their speed, and
* when the road surface is poor. Cyclists and motorcyclists may need to avoid potholes."

in the respecting other road users section:

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/respecting-other-road-users/respecting_cyclists-motorcyclists.html

TimAllen

turbine? wrote: »

Have just been looking through the Irish rules of the road website:

www.rulesoftheroad.ie

and I can not find anything in the "Rules for Cyclists" section : http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_cycling-safely.html

That states that cyclists should cycle in single file or are obliged to let faster traffic pass.

I do see this:

"Never put a cyclist or motorcyclist at risk and know your duty to be aware of them. They are especially vulnerable if there is a crash."

and this:

"Overtaking

Never cut in front of cyclists or motorcyclists when overtaking them. Give them plenty of space, especially:

* in wet or windy weather,
* when road conditions are icy,
* when they are starting off. Cyclists tend to wobble until they build up their speed, and
* when the road surface is poor. Cyclists and motorcyclists may need to avoid potholes."

in the respecting other road users section:

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/respecting-other-road-users/respecting_cyclists-motorcyclists.html

You should take the blinkers off - some people only see what they want to see .. check out page 161 which sets out a list of Do's and Don't which cyclists must obey:

"Do cycle in single file if cycling
beside another person would
endanger, inconvenience or block
other traffic or pedestrians."

and

"Do cycle in single file in heavy
traffic."

Raam

TimAllen wrote: »

You should take the blinkers off - some people only see what they want to see .. check out page 161 which sets out a list of Do's and Don't which cyclists must obey:

"Do cycle in single file if cycling
beside another person would
endanger, inconvenience or block
other traffic or pedestrians."

and

"Do cycle in single file in heavy
traffic."

All I'm reading is: blah blah blah

TimAllen

Raam wrote: »

All I'm reading is: blah blah blah

should have gone to specsavers!:pac::pac::pac:

Raam

The one thing I can see is: "do cycle"

Chips Lovell

turbine? wrote: »

Have just been looking through the Irish rules of the road website....

The rules of the road aren't the law.

TimAllen

el tonto wrote: »

The rules of the road aren't the law.

an old and tiresome chestnut ..... You can argue the interpretation of the statute i.e Road Traffic Act if you wish BUT a much simpler way of looking at the legal standing of the ROTR is this:
All road users must act with reasonable care on the road. If a road user flouts the ROTR then any garda can reasonably charge with "careless" or possibly even "reckless" behaviour.
Ask the tractor driver in Mayo about the responsibility of slow moving vehicles to pull in and allow faster traffic to progress - he got his day in court to argue his logic - and lost!

blorg

@Tim- Acoustic posted saying he was cycling two abreast (as he is legally entitled) when a boy racer came up behind him "constantly beeping and reving his car , he frightened the life out of me as we didnt even hear him comming and all u hear then is a beep"

I did not get from the post that there was heavy traffic or for that matter that he was unreasonably impeding the boy racer from overtaking.

Maybe you would like to quote from the ROTR on the appropriate use of the horn and analyse whether "constantly beeping and reving his car" fits the prescribed use.

Raam

TimAllen wrote: »

All road users must act with reasonable care on the road. If a road user flouts the ROTR then any garda can reasonably charge with "careless" or possibly even "reckless" behaviour.

Pity that part didn't apply to the driver who endangered Tunney's life.

TimAllen

Raam wrote: »

The one thing I can see is: "do cycle"

Good man, an excellent retort, if we were in primary school:D

Chips Lovell

TimAllen wrote: »

an old and tiresome chestnut ..... You can argue the interpretation of the statute i.e Road Traffic Act if you wish BUT a much simpler way of looking at the legal standing of the ROTR is this:
All road users must act with reasonable care on the road. If a road user flouts the ROTR then any garda can reasonably charge with "careless" or possibly even "reckless" behaviour.
Ask the tractor driver in Mayo about the responsibility of slow moving vehicles to pull in and allow faster traffic to progress - he got his day in court to argue his logic - and lost!

You've misinterpreted my post. I was simply pointing out that just because something isn't mentioned in the rules of the road doesn't mean there is a law against it.

Raam

TimAllen wrote: »

Good man, an excellent retort, if we were in primary school:D

All I see is: "excellent retort"