The Whistler!

Boom_Bap

Are you the cyclist who from now on i'm going to refer to as "the whistler" or possibly the "Bike Ref"...was driving to work this morning and stopped at red lights, cycle lane to the left which i was well clear of.
A cyclist went past in the cycle lane just as the lights where turning green and gave a whistle, he had a referee's whistle in his mouth. I thought to myself that it was a great idea and it was nice to get a little toot to alert me of his presence. At this point I hadnt even engagded a gear or started checking mirrors etc so it was nice to get a bit of advanced warning.

But then the loud shrill of the whistle was pretty continous for the next couple of minutes of driving, this guy pretty much was blasting the whistle at every motorist, some/most of it was justified whereas other burst where just crazy. He even was putting himself in danger at one point and nearly went smack into the back of a bus because he was concentrating too much on motorists behind him rather than the road ahead.

And before i get any comments about being a stoopid motorist here, i regularly cycle along the same street (Prussia St.) and am well aware of how dodgy motorists can be on it and how they like to stick out of junctions and block lanes.

So has anyone else encountered this guy......or is there a massive thread about this already that i have missed

ipodrocker

i saw another 'Whistler' too cycling on the n11. He was cycling on the bus lane and whistling at taxi's to get out of the way and do it alot.

Gavin

Jeese, this guy's mammy must not have taught him to run and have something in his mouth at the same time. He'll fall off his bike and swallow the whistle. He should stick with a bell/airhorn.

ipodrocker

just a bit over the top in all fairness.

silvo

I see this guy every day around the Dublin 8 area. He whistles at everyone, even at pedestrians crossing at a green man while he bates pass them. I think he may have some anger management issues...

ipodrocker

breaking a red light too!

jman0war

Classic!

I'm just enjoying the irony of a motorist giving out about being audibly assaulted by a cyclist.

As if motorists are not emotionally dependant upon their own "stress relief button" (car horn)!

Boom_Bap

jman0war wrote: »

Classic!

I'm just enjoying the irony of a motorist giving out about being audibly assaulted by a cyclist.

As if motorists are not emotionally dependant upon their own "stress relief button" (car horn)!

1. I was not 'giving out', merely an observation while driving to work today.
2. Please refer to the OP where I mention that I regularly cycle which would make me a cyclist as well as a motorist. A person can co-exist as both.


EDIT: This is not another thread intended on discussing cyclists/motorists, it is about the person I seen today with a whistle while cycling.

Ant

The OP comes across as a considerate road user. I wouldn't think it any more ironic than a cyclist giving out about another cyclist cycling the wrong way down a one-way street. Strange or bad behaviour can be called by anyone.

The Whistler sounds like somebody who doesn't enjoy his cycling and treats every journey on the bike as a battle to be fought. FWIW, I cycle up and down Prussia St. every day and I've never had a problem with bad driving.

dario28

I see a guy coming onto Dame street down the little lane by O'neills with a whistle every day , fooking cracks me up....

Captain Havoc

If he's a courier, it would explain a lot.

dario28

Captain Havoc wrote: »

If he's a courier, it would explain a lot.

No some old-ish guy dressed in bright colors with a whistle , looks like a commuter on road bike

DirkVoodoo

I'm waiting for my vuvuzela to arrive.

It sounds from your post that this guy needs a little education about cycling in traffic. To me, carrying a whistle in your mouth while on the bike means that you are simply not that capable in traffic. Passive warning (I mean passive as in you don't need to operate it every time you see a car) such as high viz jackets, bag covers, front and rear lights, reflective strips or simply keeping yourself visible and not fishtailing through traffic are far more effective. Worrying about blowing a whistle every time a car moves alongside you is not only diverting your own attention from everything else but it is potentially distacting for drivers.

Bluefoam

I was thinking of getting one of these for the bike:

Vuvuzela

Doctor Bob

Sounds very like the guy I saw last summer in the Phoenix Park one weekday afternoon. He was on the cycle track parallel to Chesterfield Avenue, heading away from town, blowing his whistle at everything in sight- iPeds, people getting into/out of their cars, even other cyclists coming towards him. I thought about pointing out to him that the cycle track (for better or worse- I don't mean to rehearse that argument here) is actually two-way, so the other cyclists were doing no wrong, but then I realised there's no point.

Like the taxi driver on Saturday evening who blasted me out of it for making an entirely legal right turn off Mespil Road, thereby preventing him from getting to the back of the queue of stationary traffic three seconds quicker ("You're only on a push bike, you're not even a motorbike"), there's simply no talking to some people.

I could have mentioned to the whistleblower that he'd get a lot less stressed if he stayed on the road, as I was, but then I figured he's probably in love with blowing his whistle, not with cycling home with as little fuss as possible.

el tel

Gavin wrote: »

Jeese, this guy's mammy must not have taught him to run and have something in his mouth at the same time. He'll fall off his bike and swallow the whistle. He should stick with a bell/airhorn.

His mother, earlier.

shaungil

I believe this gentlemans name is Benson and he is a groundskeeper in a picnic area on Craggy Island.
I hope he doesn't meet Father Damo or the whistle might mysteriously disappear

dario28

I got a close up of the whistler on O'Connell bridge and he is a fooking idiot. I was on my bike waiting to go towards custom house.

His prob in his 50's , round de Velera gold glasses , I think he was wearing bike Ireland lycra , red helmet , red bike

Some fella in a car was just passing the yellow box and the whistlers lights went green , instead of going round ur man , he cycles straight for him and blasts the whistle into the guys face...the guy in the car just goes relax mate im moving through and the whister game him a standing blast of the whistle and middle finger

fooking twat

radia

That sounds like the kind of antagonistic behaviour that's ultimately unproductive. I'm all for educating all road users on safe use of shared space, but there needs to be a bit of give and take. Treating each journey as a battle must be very stressful and tiring.

Then again, maybe I'm completely wrong and he arrives at his destination every day flushed with satisfaction at another small victory in his crusade.

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I'm waiting for my vuvuzela to arrive.

It sounds from your post that this guy needs a little education about cycling in traffic. To me, carrying a whistle in your mouth while on the bike means that you are simply not that capable in traffic. Passive warning (I mean passive as in you don't need to operate it every time you see a car) such as high viz jackets, bag covers, front and rear lights, reflective strips or simply keeping yourself visible and not fishtailing through traffic are far more effective. Worrying about blowing a whistle every time a car moves alongside you is not only diverting your own attention from everything else but it is potentially distacting for drivers.

I think perhaps that you're overanalysing it.

He's obviously a complete fruit loop, like the mad people who walk down the street shouting at goblins.

Bluefoam

I have considered putting a bell on the bike - very handy for all the nodders walking along the cycle lanes - however I was worried people would think I'd caught the ghey...

DualFrontDiscs

Bluefoam wrote: »

I have considered putting a bell on the bike - very handy for all the nodders walking along the cycle lanes - however I was worried people would think I'd caught the ghey...

Careful now. I've bells on two of my bikes. Very useful.

DFD.

Boom_Bap

dario28 wrote: »

His prob in his 50's , round de Velera gold glasses , I think he was wearing bike Ireland lycra , red helmet , red bike

That sounds about right.

Bells in theory are great but sometimes they just dont work out. When pedestrians are walking in the cycle lane and you give them a tinkle, they sometimes just stop dead and turn to see what the noise is.

Completely different in the likes of Germany, give a tinkle and the person steps out of the way then apologises

I'm glad to hear that it's not only me that has encountered The Whistler, I was hoping to see him again this morning but no sighting was made. I honestly cant wait to see him again.

ROK ON

I can't wait to meet him.
In fact if people could be kind enough to report when and where they see him we might be able to build a route map.

I just love antagonising nutjobs. It is one of my special skills in life.

rottenhat

I will say that this man is not alone - I've encountered one or two like him in every city I've lived in. They always seem to be male and completely devoid of any sense of give and take. I've never fully decided whether they are more or less irritating than the rabbity clowns who cycle on the footpath dinging their bell imperiously at pedestrians to get out of the way.

SerialComplaint

ROK ON wrote: »

I just love antagonising nutjobs. It is one of my special skills in life.

Is it just people with mental health problems that you pick on? Maybe you try expanding your scope to wheelchair users, people who use crutches, blind people, people with Downs Syndrome as well - see if you get even more jollies from that?

CheGuedara

DualFrontDiscs wrote: »

Careful now. I've bells on two of my bikes. Very useful.

DFD.

Defence For De campanologists?

dario28

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Is it just people with mental health problems that you pick on? Maybe you try expanding your scope to wheelchair users, people who use crutches, blind people, people with Downs Syndrome as well - see if you get even more jollies from that?

Dont forget the greeks...they invented gayness

Bluefoam

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Is it just people with mental health problems that you pick on? Maybe you try expanding your scope to wheelchair users, people who use crutches, blind people, people with Downs Syndrome as well - see if you get even more jollies from that?

Any tips? I can pick up the basics, like kicking the crutches from under someone, but I've no idea how to even begin berating a Down Syndrome sufferer. I'm new to this so maybe start of with some easy methods...

DualFrontDiscs

Now this bell would get people's attention:

http://www.bike24.com/1.php?content=8;navigation=1;menu=1000,5,126;product=13989

Might have to get one. Just need to pick up a bike that it would suit

DFD.

Boom_Bap

DualFrontDiscs wrote: »

Now this bell would get people's attention:

http://www.bike24.com/1.php?content=8;navigation=1;menu=1000,5,126;product=13989

Might have to get one. Just need to pick up a bike that it would suit

DFD.

team it up with one of these

http://thesportshernia.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b84f69e20120a7b1b12a970b-450wi

ROK ON

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Is it just people with mental health problems that you pick on? Maybe you try expanding your scope to wheelchair users, people who use crutches, blind people, people with Downs Syndrome as well - see if you get even more jollies from that?

Not funny IMO.
There is a big difference between a crazy guy whistling people out of it in an antagonistic way and people who have a mental or physical illness.
I would take it that this individual has anger issues as opposed to any illness per se. Perhaps my choice of humour was illjudged., just like yours.

Bluefoam

ROK ON wrote: »

Not funny IMO.
There is a big difference between a crazy guy whistling people out of it in an antagonistic way and people who have a mental or physical illness.
I would take it that this individual has anger issues as opposed to any illness per se. Perhaps my choice of humour was illjudged., just like yours.

Does this mean there's gonna be no picking on people in wheelchairs?

Lumen

Bluefoam wrote: »

Does this mean there's gonna be no picking on people in wheelchairs?

Not in this forum. Wheelchairs are surely just hand-operated fixed-gear bicycles with frontal stabilisers.

However, off-road wheelchair users or those displaying incorrect sock length deserve as much mockery as the next cyclist.

SerialComplaint

ROK ON wrote: »

Not funny IMO.
There is a big difference between a crazy guy whistling people out of it in an antagonistic way and people who have a mental or physical illness.
I would take it that this individual has anger issues as opposed to any illness per se. Perhaps my choice of humour was illjudged., just like yours.

So when you say 'crazy guy' and 'nutjob', you are NOT referring to people with mental health issues? That leaves me a bit confused.

I wasn't trying to be funny. I was trying to challenge the way many people think about people with mental health problems. Check out http://www.seechange.ie/

Harrybelafonte

SerialComplaint wrote: »

So when you say 'crazy guy' and 'nutjob', you are NOT referring to people with mental health issues? That leaves me a bit confused.

I wasn't trying to be funny. I was trying to challenge the way many people think about people with mental health problems. Check out http://www.seechange.ie/

I see the point you're making there, but whether this guy suffers from any particular health issues becomes almost irrelevant when he's acting in that kind of confrontational and antagonist manner, otherwise we'd have to act on our suspicions that about 70% of taxi drivers suffer similar mental health problems.

Bluefoam

SerialComplaint wrote: »

So when you say 'crazy guy' and 'nutjob', you are NOT referring to people with mental health issues? That leaves me a bit confused.[/url]

Even though my HSE handbook often refers to those with mental health issues as 'nutjobs' and 'crazy people', I don't know that it refers to those with specific 'diagnosed' problems.

In Rok On's comments above I interpreted his immature name calling as a form of derision for a person most people here had considered a vaguely sane - if not slightly arrogant person.

It is possible that he has some mental issues - but I don't think that was inferred...

However, It was you who implied that the protagonist may be mentally challenged - it wasn't an issue till then...

SerialComplaint

There's a few things going on here. First of all, we need to move on from using terms like 'nutjob' and 'crazy guy' and 'looney' as derogatory terms. Most of us stopped using 'spa' and 'retard' and 'crip' and 'mong' when we left the schoolyard for reasons that I hope don't have to be explained here. For the same reasons, we need to stop using terms that generally relate to mental health issues as casual, derogatory terms.

To me, the behavours of the whistler would indeed lead me to question whether he does have some mental health issues. I'm not a professional in this area, and of course, we are only seeing a tiny slice of that person's life, but it would at least trigger warning bells for me. For anyone to suggest that the appropriate response is to 'antagonise the nutjob' is very offensive to me, and needs to be challenged.

And FYI, there has been a spate of suicides amongst taxi drivers over the past year or two.

Bluefoam

SerialComplaint wrote: »

There's a few things going on here. First of all, we need to move on from using terms like 'nutjob' and 'crazy guy' and 'looney' as derogatory terms. Most of us stopped using 'spa' and 'retard' and 'crip' and 'mong' when we left the schoolyard for reasons that I hope don't have to be explained here. For the same reasons, we need to stop using terms that generally relate to mental health issues as casual, derogatory terms.

I agree to some extent. However, I have often used the terms nutjob & crazy person, but never against a person with a mental health issue. I know plenty of people who are nutjobs - I believe they are terms that are useful to describe certain people. As for the terms 'mong' & 'crip', I have never used these terms, even in school - I don't believe there is an appropriate scenario where they could be used legitimately. The word retard actually has rather normal origins & it has been misappropriated in order to objectify certain people.

I think we are way too PC. As far as I am concerned, it is absolutely fine to use whatever language you feel appropriate to express yourself - so long as you do not intentionally missuse the words.... just my €0.02

ThisRegard

Tut, look what happens when the nutjobs from motors pop over to get involved in a car vs bike row, they hang around like unwanted house guests getting all preachy and stuff.

20Cent

Came across this guy today.
Already have seen him whistling at pedestrians while flying through Christchurch.

Turning left off the N11 lights were red and there was a row of cars so I'm in the bus lane waiting for it to change. Hear this referee type whistle and there's yer man at the window manic head on him giving me the finger whistling!!
Told him to f off of course but he is a nut, gives cyclists a bad name. Cycle as much as possible myself it is frustrating when people park in cycle lanes but he was on the road, no one blocking the cycle lane.

Lumen

20Cent wrote: »

Turning left off the N11 lights were red and there was a row of cars so I'm in the bus lane waiting for it to change. Hear this referee type whistle and there's yer man at the window manic head on him giving me the finger whistling!!

Ah, but you were in the bus lane - that's a clear ROTR violation! The authority of The Whistler knows no bounds!

Jawgap

SerialComplaint wrote: »

There's a few things going on here. First of all, we need to move on from using terms like 'nutjob' and 'crazy guy' and 'looney' as derogatory terms. Most of us stopped using 'spa' and 'retard' and 'crip' and 'mong' when we left the schoolyard for reasons that I hope don't have to be explained here. For the same reasons, we need to stop using terms that generally relate to mental health issues as casual, derogatory terms.

Why?

Beasty

To be clear no-one should be speculating here about the mental state of others. If posters think this guy's behaviour is a bit "odd" then let's leave it at that, and not try and define what "odd" means

Thanks

Beasty

SerialComplaint

Beasty wrote: »

To be clear no-one should be speculating here about the mental state of others. If posters think this guy's behaviour is a bit "odd" then let's leave it at that, and not try and define what "odd" means

Just to avoid any confusion, my comments here are general comments, and not about or related to any specific individua.

Jawgap wrote: »

Why?

From http://www.seechange.ie/index.php/about-see-change/34-about-see-change/55-what-is-stigma

When we talk about stigma, we are talking about using negative labels to identify people with mental health problems. Stigma has it roots in fear and misunderstanding. Many people hold negative opinions towards people with mental health problems because they do not understand the issues involved and because they are relying on myths and misconceptions.

International research and policy documents identify stigma as one of the most persistent barriers to understanding mental health problems and the importance of mental health. Stigma has been described as:

"A cluster of negative attitudes and beliefs that motivate the general public to fear, reject, avoid and discriminate against people with mental ill health. Stigma leads others to avoid living, socialising, or working with, renting to, or employing people with mental disorders -especially severe disorders, such as schizophrenia. It leads to low self-esteem, isolation, and hopelessness. It deters the public from seeking and wanting to pay for care. Responding to stigma, people with mental health problems internalise public attitudes and become so embarrassed or ashamed that they often conceal symptoms and fail to seek treatment."

Jawgap

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Just to avoid any confusion, my comments here are general comments, and not about or related to any specific individua.


From http://www.seechange.ie/index.php/about-see-change/34-about-see-change/55-what-is-stigma

When we talk about stigma, we are talking about using negative labels to identify people with mental health problems. Stigma has it roots in fear and misunderstanding. Many people hold negative opinions towards people with mental health problems because they do not understand the issues involved and because they are relying on myths and misconceptions.

International research and policy documents identify stigma as one of the most persistent barriers to understanding mental health problems and the importance of mental health. Stigma has been described as:

"A cluster of negative attitudes and beliefs that motivate the general public to fear, reject, avoid and discriminate against people with mental ill health. Stigma leads others to avoid living, socialising, or working with, renting to, or employing people with mental disorders -especially severe disorders, such as schizophrenia. It leads to low self-esteem, isolation, and hopelessness. It deters the public from seeking and wanting to pay for care. Responding to stigma, people with mental health problems internalise public attitudes and become so embarrassed or ashamed that they often conceal symptoms and fail to seek treatment."

I quite agree that de-stigmatising mental health issues would be positive for the individuals affected, their families and the wider community - but my main quesiton when I see someone objecting to the use of a phrase, metaphor or idiom is why are they objecting?

The English language is rich and expressive and sanitising it isn't going to make the the demeaning sentiments go away - in the same way that someone who uses a particular phrase isn't necessarily expressing an objectionable sentiment.

anyone could use very neutral and technical correct language to describe someone or their condition, and turn it into a horribly offensive slur by their use of tone, context and body language.

Stripping the language of it's richness is unlikely to change much or influence attitudes to the degree necessary to introduce some positive progress in how we deal with mental health.

SerialComplaint

I'm not sure that 'nutjob' adds much to the richness of the English language. Having said that, I'm not proposing stripping or sanitising any language. It's all about context. Those works, used on that context on this thread, were offensive to me. In my opinion, they continue to stereotype and stigmatise people with mental health difficulties. The proposal that someone might go out of their way to 'antagonise nutjobs' and would indeed take pleasure from that was particularly offensive.

The English language does not lose anything by using appropriate terminology. The experts in mental health generally agree on this.

Jawgap

SerialComplaint wrote: »

I'm not sure that 'nutjob' adds much to the richness of the English language. Having said that, I'm not proposing stripping or sanitising any language. It's all about context. Those works, used on that context on this thread, were offensive to me. In my opinion, they continue to stereotype and stigmatise people with mental health difficulties. The proposal that someone might go out of their way to 'antagonise nutjobs' and would indeed take pleasure from that was particularly offensive.

The English language does not lose anything by using appropriate terminology. The experts in mental health generally agree on this.

Really?

Well, if you find it offensive, report it.

The English language loses everything if we confine ourselves to expressions or words that a few have deemed acceptable - where would that leave literature for example?

Of course, someone going out of their way to anatagonise anyone with a mental health problem is wrong, and deriving satisfaction is bordering on sociopathic - or is that another word to be stricken from the language - I think the correct terms now is "antisocial personality disorder."

Changing words won't change attitudes and focussing on the vocabulary only serves to invite trivialisation of the problems faced by people suffering with personality or mental health problems.

Bluefoam

It depends on the context.

Some people do not have serious mental health issues, yet are so arrogant and self important that they do things like ring bells at people for not conforming to their idea of correct behaviour. These people can legitimately be called nutjobs and worse.

Labling people with mental health issues is different... Has it been established that the whistler does have mental problems? if not, you may be defending & labeling someone incorrectly...

Jawgap

Agreed.....

Calling someone a "nutter" when they have mental health problems is wronger than a big bag of wrong things.......


......calling your son a "nutter" when you catch him getting ready to cycle his bike off the garage roof to impress his maters is perfectly acceptable:)

Lumen

Jawgap wrote: »

Calling someone a "nutter" when they have mental health problems is wronger than a big bag of wrong things.......

Why? That's what "nutter" means. You can call it "mental heath problem" if you want, but the semantics are much the same.

People are naturally repulsed by insanity, ugliness, disease, fatness, scarring, facial asymmetry, whatever. They're all fundamentally indicative of a lack of reproductive fitness, so we tend to be drawn away from people who exhibit these traits (and I have at least a couple of them myself).

We should hardly celebrate our basic instincts, uncivilised as they are, but attempting to deny them or eradicate all effects from our social interactions is futile.