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

Today is friday topic: Who has right of way?

Options
12357

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    DaveyDave
    Registered Users Posts: 6,229 ✭✭✭DaveyDave


    ted1 wrote: »
    Actually watching it again, the car had was on the right hand side of the road before he progressed down the road, if he were a in a car he would gracefully pull in to the right and let her pass. But instead he ploughed on down the road.

    No, actually, if he was in a car he would continue his right of way while she yielded. He didn't plough through the road, he stopped to question her wrong doing and was right to do so.


  • Options
    #123
    Wishbone Ash
    Registered Users Posts: 24,980 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    Alanstrainor wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but he is in the middle of the parked cars/pinch point as she is still approaching and should yield to approaching traffic. She drives towards the cyclist with no intention of yielding
    I can easily understand why she found herself in that position (but not her subsequent inaction).

    In my experience, most of the traffic on that street travels eastbound (probably 80%).When one is driving eastbound (i.e. towards Macken Street) the normal manoeuvre is to take up a position on the right to avoid the parked vehicles. There is usually no problem as few vehicles travel westbound. I'd say she has driven that route many times and instinctively moved to the right as the route ahead may have been appeared clear prior the cyclist approaching.

    Then her brain seemed to go into meltdown.


  • Options
    #124
    -PornStar-
    Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭-PornStar-


    ted1 wrote: »
    The driver did yield there's a good distance between the two , the road more or less goes down to one lane, bar the cyclists there was a clear route for get to go and she took up position to show on coming traffic that she was going down,

    She should have left some room for the cyclist, but from looking at his other videos he expects a dedicated car land as he doesn't use bike lanes.

    Both in wrong, if you look at his video at killiney towers round about, he is doing Laps if it with the intention of causing an incident. Just a trouble maker ,

    Yeah. That is what he was doing :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #125
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,459 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    -PornStar- wrote: »
    Yeah. That is what he was doing :rolleyes:

    Well what do you think he is doing, head cam on, doing a piece for a blog, going around in circles?
    Hardly trying to make himself dizzy


  • Options
    #126
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Two annoying twats.
    It's a pity they didn't have the conversation inside her car after he went through the windscreen.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Alanstrainor
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 23,157 Mod ✭✭✭✭Alanstrainor


    Wishbone Ash wrote: »
    I can easily understand why she found herself in that position (but not her subsequent inaction).

    In my experience, most of the traffic on that street travels eastbound (probably 80%).When one is driving eastbound (i.e. towards Macken Street) the normal manoeuvre is to take up a position on the right to avoid the parked vehicles. There is usually no problem as few vehicles travel westbound. I'd say she has driven that route many times and instinctively moved to the right as the route ahead may have been appeared clear prior the cyclist approaching.

    Then her brain seemed to go into meltdown.

    I completely agree, I can see exactly how it happened, but it's the inaction beyond that point that gets me. From my own experiences around Dublin, drivers are accommodating and reasonable, which is why I found this video so bizarre.


  • Options
    #128
    -PornStar-
    Registered Users Posts: 277 ✭✭-PornStar-


    ted1 wrote: »
    Well what do you think he is doing, head cam on, doing a piece for a blog, going around in circles?
    Hardly trying to make himself dizzy

    You are the dizzy one. He is demonstrating a new cycling infrastructure. I for one will never be near it. But I was interested in seeing how it operates. I'm not stupid enough to believe he was intentionally putting his life at risk to get some Youtube hits.


  • Options
    #129
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    ted1 wrote: »
    I make a habit of driving with common sense, if there is a long stretch of single lane and there's another person already started a manoeuvre I'll pull in to some where safe and let them continue

    You'll pull over to be head on with the following 20 cars lol. Thats not common sense. Thats nonsense.
    There's rules of the road and laws so everyone does the same thing. Why would you go do the opposite?

    The people with the obstruction have to pull in, they have the space. The people without the obstruction can't pull in left.
    Theres no space. Unless they mount the kerb. You'd assume there has to be a solution that doesn't involve driving down the footpath.


  • Options
    #130
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Alanstrainor wrote: »
    I completely agree, I can see exactly how it happened, but it's the inaction beyond that point that gets me. From my own experiences around Dublin, drivers are accommodating and reasonable, which is why I found this video so bizarre.

    Not sure I'd agree with that. I do a city commute all week. You meet people with a real attitude problem on a regular basis. They won't let people out, and drive at you, rather than slowing down and letting people merge. 20yrs ago it wasn't anything like as aggressive as it is now. Tbh its far less stress to cycle than to drive these days.


  • Options
    #131
    Alanstrainor
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 23,157 Mod ✭✭✭✭Alanstrainor


    BostonB wrote: »
    Not sure I'd agree with that. I do a city commute all week. You meet people with a real attitude problem on a regular basis. They won't let people out, and drive at you, rather than slowing down and letting people merge. 20yrs ago it wasn't anything like as aggressive as it is now. Tbh its far less stress to cycle than to drive these days.

    I've covered more kms on my bike than I have in my car this year. So I know what it's like. Not saying bad drivers aren't out there, but for the most part I find them to be grand. And shock horror, I also wear a helmet cam! :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    Me too, but only when I'm on the bike. Not so much in the car.


  • Options
    #133
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    Wishbone Ash wrote: »
    It is not the duty of ordinary citizens to enforce the road traffic regulations. That's a matter for the Gardai. Vigalantism does not have a place in a modern democratic society.
    How is this vigilantism. There is a difference between challenging someone when they break the law and actually taking the law into your own hands. The reason laws are continuously broken in this country is that Irish society finds that behavior acceptable - the good aul "ah sure, its grand, its not like someone died" attitude.

    This guy challenges a person clearly breaking the rules of the road and instead of people congratulating him for taking a stand a large portion across boards.ie say he was being a d'ick. He should have rolled over and continued to let her be an ignorant a'hole rather than challenge her and others on unacceptable and dangerous behavior. This attitude is all that is wrong in this country. The guy on matt cooper's show the other day from cyclist.ie put it well when he said that Irish people as a group are just not very good citizens. Thats why we have many inconsiderate and ignorant pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.


  • Options
    #134
    denisor
    Registered Users Posts: 345 ✭✭denisor


    UDP wrote: »
    How is this vigilantism. There is a difference between challenging someone when they break the law and actually taking the law into your own hands. The reason laws are continuously broken in this country is that Irish society finds that behavior acceptable - the good aul "ah sure, its grand, its not like someone died" attitude.

    This guy challenges a person clearly breaking the rules of the road and instead of people congratulating him for taking a stand a large portion across boards.ie say he was being a d'ick. He should have rolled over and continued to let her be an ignorant a'hole rather than challenge her and others on unacceptable and dangerous behavior. This attitude is all that is wrong in this country. The guy on matt cooper's show the other day from cyclist.ie put it well when he said that Irish people as a group are just not very good citizens. Thats why we have many inconsiderate and ignorant pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

    I can tell you how its almost vigilantism, this guy is posting videos online detailing what he perceives to be misdemeanours, with the addition of car registration numbers.

    Whilst uploading the videos detailing the other peoples identities without their permission is morally questionable. It is very naive of him to think that posting of car registration numbers online is a clear way to name and shame.

    We don't know that the cars in his clips have been transferred or sold to a new owner since the upload, We don't know that the cars are being used by someone other than the owner, We don't know that the stigma he wants attached to his targets is laid on the right person. For example in one clip on his channel he shows children in the back of a car at a junction on the Stillorgan dual carrigeway and identifies the car via registration number, We don't know who the car is driven by, it could be the owner, mechanic or an au pair.

    His methods are as flawed as the situations he finds himself in.


  • Options
    #135
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    There's no enforcement in these videos. I don't see how that vigilantism. I doubt the primary aim is name and shame. I assume its education (though I think these are poor videos for that) and also as evidence in case there is an accident or injury. That said hes not giving very good examples.


  • Options
    #136
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    denisor wrote: »
    I can tell you how its vigilantism, this guy is posting videos online detailing what he perceives to be misdemeanours, with the addition of car registration numbers.

    Whilst uploading the videos detailing the other peoples identities without their permission is morally questionable. It is very naive of him to think that posting of car registration numbers online is a clear way to name and shame.

    We don't know that the cars in his clips have been transferred or sold to a new owner since the upload, We don't know that the cars are being used by someone other than the owner, We don't know that the stigma he wants attached to his targets is laid on the right person. For example in one clip on his channel he shows children in the back of a car at a junction on the Stillorgan dual carrigeway and identifies the car via registration number, We don't know who the car is driven by, it could be the owner, mechanic or an au pair.

    His methods are as flawed as the situations he finds himself in.
    Thats not vigilantism. He is not trying to enforce the law. He is not breaking the law in what he is doing.


  • Options
    #137
    PerrDub
    Registered Users Posts: 84 ✭✭PerrDub


    Just to give a bit of perspective...

    Our hero cycles down the lane in question, on the wrong side and facing oncoming cars... without so much as a flash of lights! :pac:

    http://youtu.be/mTKjcUIq0NA


  • Options
    #138
    denisor
    Registered Users Posts: 345 ✭✭denisor


    My understanding of the definition of the vigilantism . I believe he has checked 5 out of 6

    Vigilantism has six necessary features:
    (i) it involves planning and premeditation by those engaging in it;
    (ii) its participants are private citizens whose engagement is voluntary;
    (iii) it is a form of ‘autonomous citizenship’ and, as such, constitutes a social movement;
    (iv) it uses or threatens the use of force;
    (v) it arises when an established order is under threat from the transgression, the potential transgression, or the imputed transgression of institutionalized norms;
    (vi) it aims to control crime or other social infractions by offering assurances (or ‘guarantees’) of security both to participants and to others.

    However your points are noted gentlemen, I will defer to your superior knowledge, and I accept your opinions.


  • Options
    #139
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    LOL.

    Any ladies club might tick 4 of those 6, likewise He might also be a feminist and a anarchist by those definitions.


  • Options
    #140
    Dermot Illogical
    Registered Users Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭Dermot Illogical


    BostonB wrote: »
    LOL.

    Any ladies club might tick 4 of those 6, likewise He might also be a feminist and a anarchist by those definitions.

    Marriage ticks them all.


  • Options
    #141
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    PerrDub wrote: »
    Just to give a bit of perspective...

    Our hero cycles down the lane in question, on the wrong side and facing oncoming cars... without so much as a flash of lights! :pac:

    http://youtu.be/mTKjcUIq0NA


    Not really sure of your point here, or why you think they are similar. The video is titled "two way traffic doesn't work". ( due to the parked cars) Hes moving with the flow of traffic. The point being there's no room for oncoming cars, which have had to move onto the pavement, to let the traffic out. They should remove the onstreet parking or make in one way.

    In the other video its a driver who pulls to the wrong side of the road, and won't move over to let traffic by. Whereas in this one, drivers have pulled over to let people out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    shaka
    Registered Users Posts: 1,085 ✭✭✭shaka


    Not related to vigilantism .

    www.law.cornell.edu/wex/vigilante


  • Options
    #143
    enas
    Registered Users Posts: 585 ✭✭✭enas


    denisor wrote: »
    My understanding of the definition of the vigilantism . I believe he has checked 5 out of 6

    Vigilantism has six necessary features:
    (i) it involves planning and premeditation by those engaging in it;
    (ii) its participants are private citizens whose engagement is voluntary;
    (iii) it is a form of ‘autonomous citizenship’ and, as such, constitutes a social movement;
    (iv) it uses or threatens the use of force;
    (v) it arises when an established order is under threat from the transgression, the potential transgression, or the imputed transgression of institutionalized norms;
    (vi) it aims to control crime or other social infractions by offering assurances (or ‘guarantees’) of security both to participants and to others.

    However your points are noted gentlemen, I will defer to your superior knowledge, and I accept your opinions.

    First three points could refer to anything really. Last three points are more specific to vigilantism indeed, and I don't think apply at all to him.

    Yet another definition:
    vigilante:
    a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

    Where do see any of that apply to this person?

    I agree with the views that we've become so much used to accepting crappy behaviour that we blame not the perpetrator, but the odd person who still opposes it. This is almost as bad as victim blaming.


  • Options
    #144
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    BostonB wrote: »
    Not really sure of your point here, or why you think they are similar. The video is titled "two way traffic doesn't work". ( due to the parked cars) Hes moving with the flow of traffic. The point being there's no room for oncoming cars, which have had to move onto the pavement, to let the traffic out. They should remove the onstreet parking or make in one way.

    In the other video its a driver who pulls to the wrong side of the road, and won't move over to let traffic by. Whereas in this one, drivers have pulled over to let people out.

    I think the point is that he forces the last black car 02Dxxxxx over towards the kerb by cycling directly towards him on the wrong side of the lane and on the wrong side of a continuous white line, but of course he's a cyclist so nothing wrong with that!

    Also why the assumption that the red Cork registered car is pulling over to allow traffic to exit, looks more like someone using the path to try to get past the traffic jam ( I know, it's not legal ) who is then forced to a stop by our hero executing his own illegal passing to expedite his own egress.


  • Options
    #145
    buffalo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,069 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    I think the point is that he forces the last black car 02Dxxxxx over towards the kerb by cycling directly towards him on the wrong side of the lane and on the wrong side of a continuous white line, but of course he's a cyclist so nothing wrong with that!

    I think it might be the line of slow moving car traffic taking up most of the road that forces the car toward the kerb... or should the black car try to squeeze in between the red car already on the kerb and that line of cars?


  • Options
    #146
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    buffalo wrote: »
    I think it might be the line of slow moving car traffic taking up most of the road that forces the car toward the kerb... or should the black car try to squeeze in between the red car already on the kerb and that line of cars?

    No the black car should have stopped right in the middle of the lane which is were he would have been able to if our hero hadn't been milling it down the wrong side of a solid white line, but of course you know that.

    So the question remains the similarity between the two videos is that in one our hero is belligerent and demanding his right of way and in the other he's belligerent and forcing other vehicles out of their lane to facilitate his own desires...


  • Options
    #147
    enas
    Registered Users Posts: 585 ✭✭✭enas


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    No the black car should have stopped right in the middle of the lane which is were he would have been able to if our hero hadn't been milling it down the wrong side of a solid white line, but of course you know that.

    Yeah right. The road is completely empty, the black car is only stopping for the cyclist. You're absolutely right.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    So the question remains the similarity between the two videos is that in one our hero is belligerent and demanding his right of way and in the other he's belligerent and forcing other vehicles out of their lane to facilitate his own desires...

    Seriously are you for real?


  • Options
    #148
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    enas wrote: »
    Yeah right. The road is completely empty, the black car is only stopping for the cyclist. You're absolutely right.



    Seriously are you for real?

    I'm for real and I don't wear blinkers, I look at the video and make observations based on it. The driver of the black car had no need to move over so far towards the kerb other than to facilitate a cyclist on the wrong side of the road.

    Now direct yourself to the question, if the driver of the car had been as belligerent in that situation as the cyclist was in his "melt down " video can you now see the similarities and realise the irony of his posting the "melt down" video at all rather than pulling into the kerb and encouraging the motorist out of her wrongful road positioning


  • Options
    #149
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,653 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    No the black car should have stopped right in the middle of the lane which is were he would have been able to if our hero hadn't been milling it down the wrong side of a solid white line, but of course you know that.

    Which video are you looking at? The one with the cars on his left that opposing traffic could not have moved down the road if it wanted too?


  • Options
    #150
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,653 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    I'm for real and I don't wear blinkers, I look at the video and make observations based on it. The driver of the black car had no need to move over so far towards the kerb other than to facilitate a cyclist on the wrong side of the road.

    If your talking about the Renault at the junction, then that appears stationary from the time it was clear in view, as far as I can tell.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    CramCycle wrote: »
    If your talking about the Renault at the junction, then that appears stationary from the time it was clear in view, as far as I can tell.

    At first viewing you might thinks so but frame by frame viewing shows the Renault to be moving further onto the yellow lines all the time, therefore one is left with one of two conclusions

    1 The driver is going to mount the footpath to get past the traffic obstructing the road ( Yes illegally )

    2 The driver is moving to the left to facilitate our hero the cyclist

    Now the fact that the cyclist is on the wrong side of the road and also on the wrong side of a solid white line do you see the similarity yet?

    The only difference is that the car driver isn't as belligerent in taking up their rightful position on the road and forcing the cyclist to move over


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement