Garda & Cyclist close call

Psychosis

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

They are. They belong to all road users.

They dont even pay road tax

Benevolent Misanthrope

Psychosis wrote: »

They dont even pay road tax

No, they don't pay motor tax, as they have no motor.

galljga1

Psychosis wrote: »

They dont even pay road tax

I assume you meant to add "Joe" to the end of that sentence.

Psychosis

galljga1 wrote: »

I assume you meant to add "Joe" to the end of that sentence.

Jawgap

ED E wrote: »

Equal rights to the road as any other vehicle.



All he'd have to do is refute it, can't see a judge doing him. Got startled by the aggressive driving of the gard, turned to survey the scene and naturally drifted slightly. Wing mirrors are not required for a non MPV.

Seriously, in the District Court???

You know certain judges there are nicknamed 'Guard' - all the Garda has to do is stand up and say in my opinion he was cycling without reasonable consideration - he won't be helped by the video, then it'll be "€250, next!"

Tenzor07

Jawgap wrote: »

Seriously, in the District Court???
You know certain judges there are nicknamed 'Guard' - all the Garda has to do is stand up and say in my opinion he was cycling without reasonable consideration - he won't be helped by the video, then it'll be "€250, next!

Very true, anyone brought up in front of the judge at the district court will be asked just one question: "Guilty or not guilty"... Fine€€ and, Next!

Traumadoc

randomname2005 wrote: »

I have noticed around Galway that some of the CityDirect buses have a 1.5m distance 'ad' on their back windows. I will look next time to see if there is some indication of who is sponsoring these.

The ones in Wexford are sponsored by the council, it is a legal requirement in South Australia now.

galwaycyclist

ED E wrote: »

Equal rights to the road as any other vehicle.

Uh no. Cyclists have a common law right to make lawful use of public roads as do people on foot or on horseback.

There is no "right" to drive a motorised vehicle anywhere on a public road. To bring a motor vehicle onto a public road you need an express permission first e.g. a driving licence.

Driving a motor vehicle on a public road is not "a right" it is something that is inherently illegal unless you get a permission first.

Pinch Flat

Psychosis wrote: »

They dont even pay road tax

Nobody pays road tax, but if you mean www.motortax.ie, cyclists could contribute to the roads like motorists. As a zero emissions vehicle, I can't be taxed on CO2 emissions. So how about weight - only fair as my 10kg bike is about 1% the weight of my car, which costs me €200 to tax annually.

I reckon this equates to €2 annually. Any idea where I can send a cheque? Oh and can I expect a rebate for my car that sits on the driveway Monday - Friday. Only fair.

frozenfrozen

2RockMountain wrote: »

Why would you assume that he would treat a marked Garda car differently? No driver or cyclist is required to do anything special for a Garda car, unless they are travelling with siren and lights.

What are you talking about required? Everyone should be driving with consideration for other road users, bringing up 'required' is just more entitlement, same way those kids cross zebra crossings at the slowest pace they can possibly move at. Anyone who did a similar manoeuvre as in this video to a marked garda car would have to be one of those "AM I BEING DETAINED" people.

But let's be honest, this quandry about the timing of taking the lane is just nitpicking. The exaggerated 'sweeps back in' was the real give away. He wasn't in the gutter - he was about 1m out from the kerb at the start of the lane. It is up to anyone overtaking to make sure they had enough space.

Let's be on the same page. Before you go making any assumptions about anyone. This quandary about timing is absolutely not nitpicking. Things on the road happen in very short spaces of time. You can not judge someone's actions by their intent, only by their execution. He was too late to be doing any form of advanced cycling technique of influencing and controlling of other vehicles. That would have stopped the situation from ever arising. But he was too late. He left a channel open for a car to overtake and decided to try and block that car after it had started the overtaking manoeuvre.

I'm not saying he was in the gutter, or indeed in far enough for a 1.5M overtake. But what I am saying is that this happened on a real road with real cars and he really wasn't controlling the lane and put himself into the situation of inviting an overtake. It doesn't matter who it is up to or who's choice it is, this happened. The choice was made by the car to overtake and the cyclist tried to block him when it was too late.

So when you say 'as far as he could', what you really mean is 'as far as he could within the current lane, without have to wait and find a safe place to overtake giving the recommended 1.5m passing space.

Now this is nitpicking. Are you really going to argue semantics, quoting 'as far as he could' you know well how the real world works.




It's cool that speculating about the garda car being fake is allowed but speculating that the cyclist may in fact be one of 'those' cyclists gets shut down instantly, his other videos are totally relevant, they allow us to see that this guy doesn't normally employ any kind of advanced riding techniques or indeed show any consideration for other road users.

I think everyone who has had a look at the cyclists other videos has a fair idea what kind of person he is. The one of him driving into the path of the old woman and beeping his air horn is particularly telling of his entitled attitude.

I don't see how advertising campaigns in wexford have anything to do with this video.

I also don't see how anyone can still be refuting the fact that the driver did nothing wrong until the bike blocked him in the middle of the overtake. Only then did he ruin his credibility by accelerating aggressively at the cyclist.

The cyclists here with blinders on really don't help on analysing the video, it's embarrassing to see people make excuses for someone else. The cyclist was being a dick, and so was the driver, but only after the cyclist tried to police the lane.

The best part of it is I've been reading the cyclists own story in the comments on the video, and it backs up everything I've been saying, he admits to policing the lane ", 0:17 civil looking vehicle, tailgating, abusing bus lane? I continue to avoid drain covers, "

That advanced cycling technique of controlling the lane.. yeah he calls it avoiding drain covers. Must have been a very serious drain cover there that he had to drive into the path of an overtaking car. Don't worry though he equalised the danger with that one I think.

I really enjoyed seeing him outing himself with that comment, it'll be interesting to see how a spin is put on that to actually fit the narrative of him being a ROSPA gold cyclist

UrbanFox

There is a view that use of the highway rarely involves the possession or exercise of absolute rights.

Reasonableness as well as give and take are the proper order of the day and you might well expect that view from the bench.

Practically speaking, as one who drives and cycles and walks in Dublin - including the city centre - what I have just said often does not apply on the roads ! However, if you bring the facts exhibited in the video in to the court room you will get the reasonableness lecture from on high.

Any time I am facing a potential conflict on the roads I take a second to imagine it is on record and ask myself how my performance will look in the rarified atmosphere of a court room. That thought exercise usually winds my neck in for me and I live to curse the other person another day .

randomname2005

Jawgap wrote: »

Reg 4.b - cycling without reasonable consideration

tomasrojo wrote: »

Inconsiderate cycling, I suppose. The blank cheque in the FPNs.

Oh yeah. I forgot about those.

Carawaystick

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I'm not saying he was in the gutter, or indeed in far enough for a 1.5M overtake. But what I am saying is that this happened on a real road with real cars and he really wasn't controlling the lane and put himself into the situation of inviting an overtake. It doesn't matter who it is up to or who's choice it is, this happened. The choice was made by the car to overtake and the cyclist tried to block him when it was too late.

Cars don't make choices. People driving cars make choices.

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I also don't see how anyone can still be refuting the fact that the driver did nothing wrong until the bike blocked him in the middle of the overtake. Only then did he ruin his credibility by accelerating aggressively at the cyclist.

On a 2 lane road you should overtake a vehicle in lane on the right. You can't overtake traffic on the left, and on the right at the same time.
Also you shouldn't drive a car in a bus lane.

frozenfrozen

Carawaystick wrote: »

Cars don't make choices. People driving cars make choices.

Ok thread is over, you win. Well done.

On a 2 lane road you should overtake a vehicle in lane on the right. You can't overtake traffic on the left, and on the right at the same time.
Also you shouldn't drive a car in a bus lane.

By you shouldn't drive a car in the bus lane do you mean me? Or do you mean the guard in the video? In which case really it's not our job to tell a guard whether he can or can't use a bus lane because he very well could have had a reason to use the bus lane.

I also really don't see what you're getting at by mentioning what someone should or shouldn't do on any kind of road. We're analysing what happened in the video posted here. Your comment might be more suitable in the "Learn to drive" forum? Someone over there could probably give a good explanation of how traffic works in a city

sorry to give such a ****ty reply but what can you expect after saying something as dull as cars don't make choices people driving them do

randomname2005

TheExile1878 wrote: »

If you need to ask you must be a cyclist who thinks the roads are theirs.

I must be a cyclist (who thinks the roads are theirs)? As if that disqualifies me from being a member of the other modes of transport. I think you will find that most cyclists (who think the roads are theirs or otherwise) also fall into one or more of the following groups: pedestrians, bus users, car users, motorcycle riders, truck drivers, bus drivers, and so on

I am a member of several of the above groups. Infrastructure is put in place for all of these groups to use, and the aim is that people will use it responsibly. I get frustrated at members from all of these groups (and some of the non listed ones) when they put my or other lives in danger because they need to get somewhere 2 minutes faster. I get frustrated at cyclists who break red lights, cycle without lights, cycle on paths and all of the complaints that are thrown at cyclists. I get frustrated with pedestrians who are in zombie mode and just step off paths, walk into bike lanes, without looking at what is coming. I get frustrated with motorised vehicles that break red lights, fail to stop at stop signs, drive with exessive speed and flash/honk when you are doing the speed limit or, shock horror, safely stop when the lights turn amber rather than accelerate and go through a red light.

I don't believe that any of these groups own the roads or has a right to use them in any way they want. I believe that infrastructure is to be shared (where required) responsibly by all of these groups - that means that bikes and taxis and buses share bus lanes (during operational hours), and bikes, motorbikes, buses, cars, trucks, etc share the roads they are entitled to use. But, most importantly, while using them, they have a duty to ensure they do not endanger the other users of the shared resource.

While acting as a member of the cyclist group I see a huge failing by other groups to share the resources and consider my safety given the lack of protection afforded to both sides in the event of an accident. That forces me as a cyclist to act in a defensive manner. That means taking up more than the 20cm of road most drivers would like me to occupy. That means moving out from the edge of the road in sections where it is, in my opinion, not safe to overtake.

That is, IMHO, what the cyclist in the video did. He moved out to prevent the car leaving a layer of paint on his elbow as it passed. If other road users are not going to consider his safety, then he has to do it.

And yes, the feeling of safety is subjective. But it is the right of the more vulnerable to ensure that they feel safe when others will not.

TLDR summary: No, cyclist's dont own the road, but they own the right to feel safe while using the infrastructure provided.

frozenfrozen

randomname2005 wrote: »

I must be a cyclist (who thinks the roads are theirs)? As if that disqualifies me from being a member of the other modes of transport. I think you will find that most cyclists (who think the roads are theirs or otherwise) also fall into one or more of the following groups: pedestrians, bus users, car users, motorcycle riders, truck drivers, bus drivers, and so on

I am a member of several of the above groups. Infrastructure is put in place for all of these groups to use, and the aim is that people will use it responsibly. I get frustrated at members from all of these groups (and some of the non listed ones) when they put my or other lives in danger because they need to get somewhere 2 minutes faster. I get frustrated at cyclists who break red lights, cycle without lights, cycle on paths and all of the complaints that are thrown at cyclists. I get frustrated with pedestrians who are in zombie mode and just step off paths, walk into bike lanes, without looking at what is coming. I get frustrated with motorised vehicles that break red lights, fail to stop at stop signs, drive with exessive speed and flash/honk when you are doing the speed limit or, shock horror, safely stop when the lights turn amber rather than accelerate and go through a red light.

I don't believe that any of these groups own the roads or has a right to use them in any way they want. I believe that infrastructure is to be shared (where required) responsibly by all of these groups - that means that bikes and taxis and buses share bus lanes (during operational hours), and bikes, motorbikes, buses, cars, trucks, etc share the roads they are entitled to use. But, most importantly, while using them, they have a duty to ensure they do not endanger the other users of the shared resource.

While acting as a member of the cyclist group I see a huge failing by other groups to share the resources and consider my safety given the lack of protection afforded to both sides in the event of an accident. That forces me as a cyclist to act in a defensive manner. That means taking up more than the 20cm of road most drivers would like me to occupy. That means moving out from the edge of the road in sections where it is, in my opinion, not safe to overtake.

That is, IMHO, what the cyclist in the video did. He moved out to prevent the car leaving a layer of paint on his elbow as it passed. If other road users are not going to consider his safety, then he has to do it.

And yes, the feeling of safety is subjective. But it is the right of the more vulnerable to ensure that they feel safe when others will not.

TLDR summary: No, cyclist's dont own the road, but they own the right to feel safe while using the infrastructure provided.

Well written post but I feel you are seeing this situation vicariously, as if you are the cyclist in this video. The cyclist himself has given a different account for the reason he moved into the path of the overtaking car, that he was avoiding something on the road. So I don't think your summary of the situation is fair or correct.

The sharing the road and all that other stuff really isn't relevant to this video. This video is of two egos meeting, not a breakdown in sharing the road.

randomname2005

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Well written post but I feel you are seeing this situation vicariously, as if you are the cyclist in this video. The cyclist himself has given a different account for the reason he moved into the path of the overtaking car, that he was avoiding something on the road. So I don't think your summary of the situation is fair or correct.

The sharing the road and all that other stuff really isn't relevant to this video. This video is of two egos meeting, not a breakdown in sharing the road.

Perhaps, and I see where you are coming from. The aim of my post was to reply to the idea that all cyclists think that all roads belong to them, and answering it from the perspective of a regular cyclist who encounters dangerous overtaking several times a week.

CramCycle

Traumadoc wrote: »

The ones in Wexford are sponsored by the council, it is a legal requirement in South Australia now.

AFAIK, and our Wexford cyclists may spread more light but my understanding is they were, at least (could be sponsored now), the preserve of one local who has done more work on his own in Wexford than the entirety of the RSA to promote safe cycling and respect for road users.

frozenfrozen

randomname2005 wrote: »

Perhaps, and I see where you are coming from. The aim of my post was to reply to the idea that all cyclists think that all roads belong to them, and answering it from the perspective of a regular cyclist who encounters dangerous overtaking several times a week.

I completely see where you're coming from, too. But I think sentiments like that are clouding the fact that in this case, the cyclist was acting outside of what a regular cyclist would do, and put himself in danger for the sake of proving a point of not allowing a seemingly private car, to abuse the bus lane, that's in the cyclists own words, too. " 0:17 civil looking vehicle, tailgating, abusing bus lane? "

From his own recollection of the event, he was already on the defensive before the car had actually done anything wrong.

I hope I'm not coming across as anti cyclists, I'm just looking at this cyclist and disputing the idea that he has done no wrong, there was two of them in it

2RockMountain

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

A few posts back somebody said they checked the reg and nothing came up but marked Garda cars were coming up. These could be 'Ghost' plates that are issued for diplomatic/Govt cars —the actual reg plate hides behind the ghost plate. I know they use them in other countries but did not know they had them here. Makes sense for them to have them though.

I’m not quite sure why that would make sense. If they do exist, their existence in general should at least be made known to the general public. But also, they put a very particular obligation on the drivers of such cars to drive safely, which this guy clearly wasn’t.

gctest50 wrote: »

His other videos are very relevant, gives a clear picture

You did notice the point on the YouTube channel description about videos from multiple cyclists being shown on one channel.

Jawgap wrote: »

I hope he doesn't make a complaint - the Guard, while being a bit of a nobhead, doesn't deserve a GSOC inquiry

It’s not the most serious offence in the world, but in my opinion, there should be some form of investigation / action / discipline. It should be made clear to the Garda that this kind of driving / bullying is not acceptable.

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

It's a Garda car. You can see the Wig-Wag lights in the video approx 30 seconds in. Plenty of Garda cars don't look like your 'typical' Garda cars, whether they be unmarked or not ...

Don’t many ‘fancy’ cars have lights that automatically flash under severe braking as a safety feature?

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Cyclist is foolish for swerving out and trying to block the car though when he knew only too well that the driver was attempting to overtake.

He didn’t ‘swerve out’ – he moved out slightly, maybe about 30cm or 50cm out. The car should have left far more space when attempting to pass, and if (as was the case here) there wasn’t enough space, he should have held back.

Carawaystick

Carawaystick wrote: »

Also you shouldn't drive a car in a bus lane.

Are you aware that it was actually a bus lane at that time?
It's a bus lane at certain times, others it is not.
And yes the gardai can use the bus lanes.
Gardai can also use their personal car for official business with permission.

Garda was a thick mule but judging by this lads other videos, he's out for arguments all over the place!

07Lapierre

The flashing car lights could also be due to the frame rate of the video camera. Static LED lights appear to flash if recorded at 25frames per second.

2RockMountain

frozenfrozen wrote: »

By you shouldn't drive a car in the bus lane do you mean me? Or do you mean the guard in the video? In which case really it's not our job to tell a guard whether he can or can't use a bus lane because he very well could have had a reason to use the bus lane.

THe only 'reason to use a bus lane' is an emergency, in which case he should have had lights and siren on to warn other road users.

2RockMountain

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I completely see where you're coming from, too. But I think sentiments like that are clouding the fact that in this case, the cyclist was acting outside of what a regular cyclist would do

Yes, he did act outside of what a regular cyclist would do. That doesn't make him wrong - just different.

Darkglasses

CramCycle wrote: »

AFAIK, and our Wexford cyclists may spread more light but my understanding is they were, at least (could be sponsored now), the preserve of one local who has done more work on his own in Wexford than the entirety of the RSA to promote safe cycling and respect for road users.

Since founding it he has gotten some support from WCC, but I don't know any of the details, if it's just publicity or financial or anything else.

frozenfrozen

2RockMountain wrote: »

THe only 'reason to use a bus lane' is an emergency, in which case he should have had lights and siren on to warn other road users.

That's for the guards to decide, not a cyclist who by his own admission saw the car as someone abusing the bus lane, which influenced his decision. Whether the car should have been in the lane or not, he was there, and the cyclist endangered himself

2RockMountain wrote: »

Yes, he did act outside of what a regular cyclist would do. That doesn't make him wrong - just different.

he didn't behave in a predictable manner, or even in a safe manner. Who's talking about wrong, I'm talking about him endangering himself and exasperating the situation by acting for his ego not his safety

2RockMountain

frozenfrozen wrote: »

That's for the guards to decide, not a cyclist who by his own admission saw the car as someone abusing the bus lane, which influenced his decision.

Where do you get this from? The cyclist doesn't get to prosecute or fine, but it certainly capable and willing of making his own decisions and acting accordingly.

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Whether the car should have been in the lane or not, he was there, and the cyclist endangered himself

he didn't behave in a predictable manner, or even in a safe manner. Who's talking about wrong, I'm talking about him endangering himself and exasperating the situation by acting for his ego not his safety

He moved out by 30cm to 50cm, in a situation where the driver should have left 150cm passing space. The cyclist did not cause the danger here.

07Lapierre

2RockMountain wrote: »

Where do you get this from? The cyclist doesn't get to prosecute or fine, but it certainly capable and willing of making his own decisions and acting accordingly.



He moved out by 30cm to 50cm, in a situation where the driver should have left 150cm passing space. The cyclist did not cause the danger here.

30-50cm??? How can you tell? A wide angle lens can distort/stretch images and make distances look bigger or smaller.

frozenfrozen

2RockMountain wrote: »

Where do you get this from? The cyclist doesn't get to prosecute or fine, but it certainly capable and willing of making his own decisions and acting accordingly.



He moved out by 30cm to 50cm, in a situation where the driver should have left 150cm passing space. The cyclist did not cause the danger here.

You're either not reading my posts or just ignoring what I'm saying.

The cyclist is in no position to police the lane, if you disagree that he was policing the lane then say so, but don't try to bring this down a road of who gets to prosecute, that is utter nonsense.

"The cyclist did not cause the danger here", you're correct, he just amplified the danger by blocking the overtake after it had already started.

uck51js9zml2yt

Would be interesting to get the views of some of the AGS members of boards!

In my mind, the driver was aggressive in his behaviour and flashing a badge to intimidate the cyclist which obviously didn't work.