Abusive Driver meets Off Duty Guards Cycling

TonyStark

Interesting to see this in the paper today. First conviction I've read about in a while having experienced some of the behaviour mentioned.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/abusive-driver-didnrsquot-know-cyclists-were-off-duty-gardai-272382.html#.U6AIbEmb8gQ.facebook

couerdelion

A guard I know got a conviction after a glass bottle was thrown at him whilst out cycling.

RV

Seems hard on him to have a bottle thrown at him and be convicted. Had it coming though, I suppose.

.ak

RV wrote: »

Seems hard on him to have a bottle thrown at him and be convicted. Had it coming though, I suppose.

Ha that's how I read it too.

Harsh!

delop

Any chance the Driver was telling the truth?

T-Maxx

delop wrote: »

Any chance the Driver was telling the truth?

No.

No Pants

delop wrote: »

Any chance the Driver was telling the truth?

He claimed he was driving at 5mph. That's just not credible. Judge didn't believe a word of it. He got away lightly.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

What possible reason would the guards have to lie? They get no personal benefit from this and if found to be lying would be in some pretty hot water. No way the driver was telling the truth. I have experienced similar myself while out cycling, particularly at the weekend so I'd well believe it happened. Are people really in that big a rush to get home and sit in front of the telly?

detones

Seems a sorry state that it has to be a Garda that can only see any justice done when affected personally by abusive behaviour on the roads. The rest if us just gave it put up with it.

TonyStark

I think the most interesting point by the driver is that he was driving at 5mph. So the cyclists at that point were cycling at 8kmph? Were they scaling a wall?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

To be fair they were probably cycling at 9km/hr as I'm sure the driver was keeping a safe distance behind them until a suitable overtaking opportunity presented itself. :rolleyes:

donegal.

After reading the newspaper report , what the man says sounds very plausible ( the 5mph being an obvious exaggeration).

i've witnessed what he describes at least a couple of times a week. (i'm always on a couple of roads that see an endless convoy of malin head-mizan head cyclists )

zl1whqvjs75cdy

donegal. wrote: »

After reading the newspaper report , what the man says sounds very plausible ( the 5mph being an obvious exaggeration).

i've witnessed what he describes at least a couple of times a week. (i'm always on a couple of roads that see an endless convoy of malin head-mizan head cyclists )

You've witnessed cyclists using the road as they are legally entitled to do? How exciting.

TonyStark

I think the underlying issue is that are some motorists who resent having to perform an actual overtaking manoeuvre. There is quite a number that cannot control a vehicle properly. Eg. Those that roll through stop signs because they feel they might stall the car.

They feel cyclists should filter on their approach in order for them to squeeze past even if it means overtaking them dangerously. 9/10 times they'll fail to stop or just speed away with no thoughts to the consequences of their dangerous manoeuvre.

The strange thing is that they may meet a cyclist travelling at 25-30kmph and in the space of 2 minutes they will have overtaken the cyclist and then return to 70-80kmph on the road. On the other hand they'll another motorist driving at 40-50kmph for up to 20 minutes and yet they won't try to assault them with their vehicle.

donegal.

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

You've witnessed cyclists using the road as they are legally entitled to do? How exciting.

"the cyclists were cycling and chatting to each other two abreast and one of them leaned aggressively towards his window and he said he was afraid the cyclist was going to punch him."

acting aggressively towards other road users, disrupting the flow of traffic by making it as difficult as possible for people to overtake?

I never said it was illegal to be a prick.

fits

If you experience enough people try to run you off the roads with dangerous overtaking manoevres then you might cycle two abreast as well. In many cases, if there's not enough room to pass two abreast, there isnt room to pass one.

nak

donegal. wrote: »

After reading the newspaper report , what the man says sounds very plausible ( the 5mph being an obvious exaggeration).

i've witnessed what he describes at least a couple of times a week. (i'm always on a couple of roads that see an endless convoy of malin head-mizan head cyclists )

The driver was found guilty, so why the blame the victims? Enough of the trolling.

Eamonnator

donegal. wrote: »

After reading the newspaper report , what the man says sounds very plausible ( the 5mph being an obvious exaggeration).


Good job, the judge didn't think, as you do.

Scrappy600

donegal. wrote: »

"the cyclists were cycling and chatting to each other two abreast and one of them leaned aggressively towards his window and he said he was afraid the cyclist was going to punch him."

acting aggressively towards other road users, disrupting the flow of traffic by making it as difficult as possible for people to overtake?

I never said it was illegal to be a prick.

I may be having a seriously blonde moment here, and not thinking this through, so correct me if i'm wrong, but that would put the cyclist leaning at his passenger window no? Cyclist would want some length of an arm to get a punch to the driver!

DirkVoodoo

donegal. wrote: »

After reading the newspaper report , what the man says sounds very plausible ( the 5mph being an obvious exaggeration)

Any excuse you make in court would have to sound plausible, otherwise you would be found guilty and moronic at the same time.

I find it hard to believe two Gardai out for a cycle would risk assaulting someone then lie about it in court. As someone said, they would have a lot to lose.

I, however, find it entirely plausible that some ignorant fool would carry on like that then lie like a rug in front of a judge. If you ask me, he got off lightly.

DirkVoodoo

Scrappy600 wrote: »

I may be having a seriously blonde moment here, and not thinking this through, so correct me if i'm wrong, but that would put the cyclist leaning at his passenger window no? Cyclist would want some length of an arm to get a punch to the driver!

I was thinking the same, but I think the cyclists had moved right to turn and the driver was passing inside them to go straight or left. In either case, I doubt that happened as if both were stopped then the driver would simply have to hit the accelerator unless stuck in traffic and no one cycling at speed would, in their right mind, try and lean into a moving car for the sake of an argument.

EDIT: I had a whole line about "the long arm of the law" lined up and all!

TonyStark

Scrappy600 wrote: »

I may be having a seriously blonde moment here, and not thinking this through, so correct me if i'm wrong, but that would put the cyclist leaning at his passenger window no? Cyclist would want some length of an arm to get a punch to the driver!

He must have had the arms of Mr. Tickle...

No Pants

donegal. wrote: »

"the cyclists were cycling and chatting to each other two abreast and one of them leaned aggressively towards his window and he said he was afraid the cyclist was going to punch him."

Come on. Even the judge thought that was horse****.

CramCycle

Leaned aggressively - while slowing to make a turn, impressive
Beside the window - so he was slowing mid undertake, I can only imagine why

Truth of the matter is, if it stops only one road user from being a numpty because they think it could be a Garda, well then it's a good result

Lumen

CramCycle wrote: »

Truth of the matter is, if it stops only one road user from being a numpty because they think it could be a Garda, well then it's a good result

Garda CC jersey group buy?

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

Garda CC jersey group buy?

Some folk don't even notice the jerseys. One lad I know from Garda CC had some taxi driver start beeping at him for no good reason other than ignorance of the law. So he had a conversation with him about the law. Taximan never spotted the logo on the jersey. Gardaman then invites him to follow him into Dublin Castle so they can continue their conversation. Taximan's attitude changed sharpish then.

CramCycle

Lumen wrote: »

Garda CC jersey group buy?

After an incident with the Super in Pearse St. at the time of the boards.ie buy, I won’t take the risk.

He was dropping off samples but he didn't tell me why he called round, I panicked when he asked for me and pretended to be my flatmate. Had to go into the station the next day, clean shaven in the hope he wouldn't recognise me and the explain the stupidity of the situation when he did, I felt the air heavy with distrust, he eventually made me sign a sworn statement in the station that I was who I was and I was taking what I was taking.

Wishbone Ash

Raam wrote: »

Some folk don't even notice the jerseys. One lad I know from Garda CC had some taxi driver start beeping at him for no good reason other than ignorance of the law. So he had a conversation with him about the law. Taximan never spotted the logo on the jersey. Gardaman then invites him to follow him into Dublin Castle so they can continue their conversation. Taximan's attitude changed sharpish then.

I was cycling through Santry a few weeks ago when I met another cyclist at the lights in a GCC jersey. We rode together for about 10k. He had road rash on his leg and I asked him about it. He said he had been taken down by a motorist earlier in the city centre turning left across his path. He said they exchanged details etc. I had to ask the question - did the motorist know he was a Garda. He said he didn't think so and he didn't say he was. In fairness to him, he said it wasn't relevant.

(He had a bloody nice bike but I can't recall was it was now. )

TeaBagMania

Geez they printed O’Sheas address in that article. Cyclist are going to be protesting up and down his street

Hmmzis

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Geez they printed O’Sheas address in that article. Cyclist are going to be protesting up and down his street

In this weather? Yeah, sure.

No Pants

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Geez they printed O’Sheas address in that article. Cyclist are going to be protesting up and down his street

Not unless there are Strava segments there.

CramCycle

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Geez they printed O’Sheas address in that article. Cyclist are going to be protesting up and down his street

If he had any sense he would have put a strava segment up on the main parts of his commute to speed people up :pac:

a148pro

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I find it hard to believe two Gardai out for a cycle would risk assaulting someone then lie about it in court. As someone said, they would have a lot to lose.

Have you read the Morris Tribunal Report?

In fairness, anyone with enough time to read the Morris Tribunal Report should really be out cycling instead, but you get the point.

CramCycle

No Pants wrote: »

Not unless there are Strava segments there.

Beaten by seconds, my boards profile is alot like my Strava one.

brayblue24

a148pro wrote: »

Have you read the Morris Tribunal Report?

In fairness, anyone with enough time to read the Morris Tribunal Report should really be out cycling instead, but you get the point.

I did, yeah. I don't recall any reference to cycling though

Lusk_Doyle

donegal. wrote: »

disrupting the flow of traffic by making it as difficult as possible for people to overtake?

How is the two abreast situation any different than another larger slow moving vehicle in front of you? It's not. I just don't understand the attitude towards non-motorised form of transport users. You wouldn't act in that manner to a big slow truck, would you? So why towards cyclists?

buffalo

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

How is the two abreast situation any different than another larger slow moving vehicle in front of you? It's not. I just don't understand the attitude towards non-motorised form of transport users. You wouldn't act in that manner to a big slow truck, would you? So why towards cyclists?

It's only a cyclist (or two). I've been trying to work this one out - I've seen people give more room to parked cars than cyclists, a wider berth to horses, more patience toward a Vespa, and more tolerance to pedestrians. Cyclists just seem to raise some people's hackles.

I think their frustration is borne of jealousy and sexual attraction.

Lusk_Doyle

buffalo wrote: »

It's only a cyclist (or two). I've been trying to work this one out - I've seen people give more room to parked cars than cyclists, a wider berth to horses, more patience toward a Vespa, and more tolerance to pedestrians. Cyclists just seem to raise some people's hackles.

I think their frustration is borne of jealousy and sexual attraction.

It's the pink!

Iwannahurl

buffalo wrote: »

It's only a cyclist (or two). I've been trying to work this one out - I've seen people give more room to parked cars than cyclists, a wider berth to horses, more patience toward a Vespa, and more tolerance to pedestrians. Cyclists just seem to raise some people's hackles.

I've seen motorists slow down for a dog crossing, at a junction where driving on the footpath, breaking red lights and accelerating through the Green Man are routine behaviours.

The psychology of driving is complex I guess.

Cee-Jay-Cee

detones wrote: »

Seems a sorry state that it has to be a Garda that can only see any justice done when affected personally by abusive behaviour on the roads. The rest if us just gave it put up with it.

That is incorrect, the rest of those affected don't or arent willing to go to court and give their side of the story. In this case the fact that he was a guard is irrelevant as he went to court as a witness/injured party and told his story. If people were to follow up in their complaints by going to court then there would be possibly a lot less of this type if driver behaviour...but the fact is most people don't want the bother or a court case and so don't make official complaints.

buffalo

CJC999 wrote: »

That is incorrect, the rest of those affected don't or arent willing to go to court and give their side of the story. In this case the fact that he was a guard is irrelevant as he went to court as a witness/injured party and told his story. If people were to follow up in their complaints by going to court then there would be possibly a lot less of this type if driver behaviour...but the fact is most people don't want the bother or a court case and so don't make official complaints.

I disagree. I was involved in an incident about a year ago now I'd say. I had a witness, reported it to the Gardaí, and haven't heard anything since. I'd love to believe that if anyone else had been in the Gardaí's place in this incident [edit: in the article], the same result would have happened, but given my past experiences, I sincerely doubt it.

I'm also still waiting for a call on an incident with Dublin Bus about a month ago.

...they may have my name and number in the 'cranks' file though.

cerastes

fits wrote: »

If you experience enough people try to run you off the roads with dangerous overtaking manoevres then you might cycle two abreast as well. In many cases, if there's not enough room to pass two abreast, there isnt room to pass one.

eh? there are many situations were two abreast is just being inconsiderate of other road users though, while the guy sounds foolish to do what he did, that doesnt discount the possibility that it makes sense to allow other road users, use the road and not impede them.

The article reads like the cyclist put his hand out to indicate, and both sides seem to confirm this, indication isnt a right of way, if this was done in a car it wouldn't infer right of way either. I dont know what the layout of the road is but Im suspicious both sides are at fault.
As a former cyclist, despite what Conor Faughnan says, it isn't safe on the road, but there are bad drivers, cyclists and pedestrians.

CJC999 wrote: »

That is incorrect, the rest of those affected don't or arent willing to go to court and give their side of the story. In this case the fact that he was a guard is irrelevant as he went to court as a witness/injured party and told his story. If people were to follow up in their complaints by going to court then there would be possibly a lot less of this type if driver behaviour...but the fact is most people don't want the bother or a court case and so don't make official complaints.

Because most people know it will be a complete waste of their time, if it wasn't relevant that the cyclists were gardai, then why does the article suggest the Gardai were referred to as Gardai in court?

detones

CJC999 wrote: »

That is incorrect, the rest of those affected don't or arent willing to go to court and give their side of the story. In this case the fact that he was a guard is irrelevant as he went to court as a witness/injured party and told his story. If people were to follow up in their complaints by going to court then there would be possibly a lot less of this type if driver behaviour...but the fact is most people don't want the bother or a court case and so don't make official complaints.

Was waiting for this counter argument and surprised it took so long ;-)

I don't disagree with the sentiment to what your saying. However the fact the person involved was a Gaurd is not irrelevant IMHO. It is the basis for this whole discussion for 1 thing.

Unfortunately there is a opinion from cyclists born from both experience and perception that pursuing such cases is a fruitless endeavour. This should not be the case, but it is what it is.

Wishbone Ash

buffalo wrote: »

I disagree. I was involved in an incident about a year ago now I'd say. I had a witness, reported it to the Gardaí, and haven't heard anything since. I'd love to believe that if anyone else had been in the Gardaí's place in this incident [edit: in the article], the same result would have happened, but given my past experiences, I sincerely doubt it....

I was involved in an accident in October 2012 where the Gardai attended the scene and I was hospitalised afterwards. I'm still waiting for a court appearance.I've made several calls to the station and they are still "looking into it".

(In my situation the 17 year old driver was blatantly wrong - she made a right turn across my path while being unaccompanied on a learner permit and left the scene ofthe accident. There were 3 witnesses).

No Pants

CJC999 wrote: »

That is incorrect, the rest of those affected don't or arent willing to go to court and give their side of the story. In this case the fact that he was a guard is irrelevant as he went to court as a witness/injured party and told his story. If people were to follow up in their complaints by going to court then there would be possibly a lot less of this type if driver behaviour...but the fact is most people don't want the bother or a court case and so don't make official complaints.

I agree with your point, but I do think that the word of a Guard is taken more seriously by the judicial system. With two Garda witnesses, this chap was done for, and rightly so. The offender didn't help himself by going too far in the opposite direction though. Claiming to be driving at 5mph was transparent nonsense.

MayoAreMagic

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

How is the two abreast situation any different than another larger slow moving vehicle in front of you? It's not. I just don't understand the attitude towards non-motorised form of transport users. You wouldn't act in that manner to a big slow truck, would you? So why towards cyclists?

It is different though. A slow moving truck cant do a whole lot, it is what it is. Two cyclists up beside each other, only there so they can be chatting away, while a row of cars builds up behind them is very inconsiderate to other road users. They could go single file and allow the traffic to pass. They could stagger their pattern and still chat, while allowing consideration for a car behind. I have been in a situation where not 2 but 3 cyclists were lined up, chatting away and peddling along leisurely for over a mile of road where in that formation it was difficult to overtake them. Had they been in single file, it would have been fine. There was 10 cars behind them, unable to get passed. Now I am sure cyclists get some serious flak, but I ask you, would these lads being doing that if there was a squad car behind them? It works both ways and cyclists are not totally innocent either.

No Pants

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Two cyclists up beside each other, only there so they can be chatting away, while a row of cars builds up behind them is very inconsiderate to other road users. They could go single file and allow the traffic to pass.

Please explain how it is not possible to pass two cyclists safely, yet possible to pass one.

buffalo

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I was involved in an accident in October 2012 where the Gardai attended the scene and I was hospitalised afterwards. I'm still waiting for a court appearance.I've made several calls to the station and they are still "looking into it".

(In my situation the 17 year old driver was blatantly wrong - she made a right turn across my path while being unaccompanied on a learner permit and left the scene ofthe accident. There were 3 witnesses).

Snap! Hospitalised and Garda attended the scene. He didn't take details of the driver who caused it, nor any witnesses, and then lied to me when I asked for them. Which reminds me, I must get on to GSOC...

CramCycle

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

It is different though. A slow moving truck cant do a whole lot, it is what it is. Two cyclists up beside each other, only there so they can be chatting away, while a row of cars builds up behind them is very inconsiderate to other road users. They could go single file and allow the traffic to pass. They could stagger their pattern and still chat, while allowing consideration for a car behind. I have been in a situation where not 2 but 3 cyclists were lined up, chatting away and peddling along leisurely for over a mile of road where in that formation it was difficult to overtake them. Had they been in single file, it would have been fine. There was 10 cars behind them, unable to get passed. Now I am sure cyclists get some serious flak, but I ask you, would these lads being doing that if there was a squad car behind them? It works both ways and cyclists are not totally innocent either.

Cyclists two abreast are not hugely wider than a single file cyclist (taking up approximately 2/3 of a traffic lane compared to a 1/2) but single file they will be twice as long which means you will need a longer line of sight to safely overtake as you need to be sure the road is clear for the time needed to overtake. The truth is that if you cannot over take two cyclists side by side safely, in the majority of cases you can't over take 2 cyclists in single file safely. On the majority of irish roads you need to cross the white line to make a safe overtake. If it is safe to do this, then it is safe to overtake, and if it is safe to do this, then it is safe to complete a proper overtake of two cyclist, in a shorter time.

Is there anything about this statement that is confusing?

MayoAreMagic

Cramcycle, that isn't accurate. First off, I will say that I cycle myself, so people can straight away drop the 'them v us' approach before it starts. The reality of this situation is that cycling 2 or 3 abreast isn't leaving sufficient room between vehicles - other bicycles are vehicles too. Keeping with the rules of the road, they should be in single file and they should be keeping left, should they not? Secondly, two cyclists side by side requires over twice as much room as 1 cyclist in single file, simply because it is far more dangerous and unpredictable. They could collide, one guy could be forced to swerve because of the other, etc etc, therefore because their pattern is haphazard, they in fact need over double the room that 1 cyclist would need.

Also, your assessment of overtaking is wrong. It will take a vehicle, cars and bikes included, far longer to slow right down, take a very wide arch, get around 2 bikes while leaving sufficient room for potential accidents from the hazardous formation the bikes are in and get back in than it would to overtake 2 bikes in single file. This is due to the level of change of direction required and the speeds you are able to do those directional changes at in a safe manner. You are actually far more likely to get cut off side by side than in single file, because the driver has lost momentum. If the cyclists were in single file the overtaking vehicle could maintain more of the momentum they had built up before meeting the bikes.

Skrynesaver

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Cramcycle, that isn't accurate. First off, I will say that I cycle myself, so people can straight away drop the 'them v us' approach before it starts. The reality of this situation is that cycling 2 or 3 abreast isn't leaving sufficient room between vehicles - other bicycles are vehicles too. Keeping with the rules of the road, they should be in single file and they should be keeping left, should they not? Secondly, two cyclists side by side requires over twice as much room as 1 cyclist in single file, simply because it is far more dangerous and unpredictable. They could collide, one guy could be forced to swerve because of the other, etc etc, therefore because their pattern is haphazard, they in fact need over double the room that 1 cyclist would need.

Also, your assessment of overtaking is wrong. It will take a vehicle, cars and bikes included, far longer to slow right down, take a very wide arch, get around 2 bikes while leaving sufficient room for potential accidents from the hazardous formation the bikes are in and get back in than it would to overtake 2 bikes in single file. This is due to the level of change of direction required and the speeds you are able to do those directional changes at in a safe manner. You are actually far more likely to get cut off side by side than in single file, because the driver has lost momentum. If the cyclists were in single file the overtaking vehicle could maintain more of the momentum they had built up before meeting the bikes.

Actually the rules of the road allow for bikes 2 abreast, or 3 when overtaking.

If you don't have room to go into the opposite lane due to oncoming traffic, you do not have sufficient space to overtake a bike in most roads in Ireland.

Not a them and us cyclist v driver thing, more an informed v uninformed thing...