Garda & Cyclist close call

Kaisr Sose

2RockMountain wrote: »

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.

My post refers only to the car and where shadow plates are in use you won't find any information on the car through normal searches. That's the point of them. I don't know if they exist in Ireland but security measures such as that don't have to be shared publically. That's the whole point of them - security and anonymity of the occupant. I worked abroad and some diplomatic /counsular staff of certain countries had them on their official and private cars so that these cars would not stand out from 'ordinary' cars. Behind the normal plate of that country, was the diplomatic (cd) plate. Only senior police had access to the true id of the car (again for legitimate security reasons)

Tigger

i said earlier that it isn't a state car i was mistaken
it is a state car as it has alternating lights and its not listed on motorcheck so the car had every right to be in the bus lane.

its not currently the law to give 1.5m so if the driver had overtaken in the same lane he would have been in the right. also while taking the lane is probably good practice the cyclist hadn't taken the lane so shouldn't have done it at that point.

I think that the law should be changed and that 1.5m should be enforced (why advise people that 1.5m is the correct distance thats like advising people that 100kmph is the speed limit) if you cant overtake a cyclist at 1.5m you should have to wait, i also think that a cyclist should be consistent and that if they are keeping in then they are keeping in they shouldn't take the lane after the fact. I also think that the Guard should have simply pulled in the cyclist for moving out and told him off or issued him with something, not accelerated at him and then justified it with a badge.
Ideally they would both be sanctioned for this

NeedMoreGears

I had another look at the video just now.

It seems to me that there are two instances of poor vehicle skills to begin with

1 - Attempted pass by a car driver in a relatively confined space and where the gap to the vulnerable road user is too narrow

2 - failure of the cyclist to adequately control the lane in the first instance

I would regard the former as more serious

This was quickly followed by two instances of plain stupidity (in my view)

1 - the cyclist moves right with the car right beside him, making the gap even closer

2 - the car driver accelerates to close the gap at the rear of the cyclist in what I would perceive as quite a threatening manner

The former probably wins the stupider award but not by much

This is topped off by (again in my view) a particularly nasty and stupid attempt to intimidate the cyclist by flashing an ID


No one covered themselves in glory here.

frozenfrozen

NeedMoreGears wrote: »

This is topped off by (again in my view) a particularly nasty and stupid attempt to intimidate the cyclist by flashing an ID


No one covered themselves in glory here.

I agree except for flashing ID part, he takes out the ID and says "Sorry, who exactly are you" "This is a police car and you are blocking a bus lane, I'm just asking you why are you doing that"

He definitely did not flash the badge to intimidate him

Benevolent Misanthrope

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I agree except for flashing ID part, he takes out the ID and says "Sorry, who exactly are you" "This is a police car and you are blocking a bus lane, I'm just asking you why are you doing that"

He definitely did not flash the badge to intimidate him

I wonder why he accelerated hard at the cyclist then when the cyclist was clearly in front of him and going nowhere? 25 seconds into the video, clear as day.

frozenfrozen

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

I wonder why he accelerated hard at the cyclist then when the cyclist was clearly in front of him and going nowhere?

How does that question relate to what you quoted? Your guess is as good as mine. You should read back over the last 300 posts here to figure that one out

Benevolent Misanthrope

frozenfrozen wrote: »

How does that question relate to what you quoted? Your guess is as good as mine. You should read back over the last 300 posts here to figure that one out

You - reading his mind - state that he didn't flash the badge to intimidate the cyclist. He did this seconds after acccelerating his car at the cyclist in an intimidatory fashion.

That's the relation.

Diemos

frozenfrozen wrote: »

"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.

That's a funny logic. Kinda like saying, I shouldn't have beat the crap outta my girlfriend but she amplified the danger by not coming home when I told her to.

frozenfrozen

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

You - reading his mind - state that he didn't flash the badge to intimidate the cyclist. He did this seconds after acccelerating his car at the cyclist in an intimidatory fashion.

That's the relation.

You - reading into the situation - assume that you're correct - read the whole thread - then try have this conversation with me

I don't think you're correct.

Benevolent Misanthrope

frozenfrozen wrote: »

You - reading into the situation - assume that you're correct - read the whole thread - then try have this conversation with me

I don't think you're correct.

Why should I read the whole thread again?

Do you have an alternate explanation as to why he accelerated hard and braked hard at the bicycle in the middle of the lane? I'd love to hear it.

2RockMountain

07Lapierre wrote: »

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

By comparing it against the size of the bike and the cargo box.

frozenfrozen

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

Why should I read the whole thread again?

Do you have an alternate explanation as to why he accelerated hard and braked hard at the bicycle in the middle of the lane? I'd love to hear it.

You'd love to hear it? Then read the whole thread.

Benevolent Misanthrope

frozenfrozen wrote: »

You'd love to hear it? Then read the whole thread.

So you have no explanation for why the Garda accelerated at the bike in an intimidatory fashion @25 seconds?

You just had to say so.

frozenfrozen

Diemos wrote: »

That's a funny logic. Kinda like saying, I shouldn't have beat the crap outta my girlfriend but she amplified the danger by not coming home when I told her to.

That's just a misleading comparison, this is two road users. Not comparable nor equivalent in any way

Benevolent Misanthrope

frozenfrozen wrote: »

That's just a misleading comparison, this is two road users. Not comparable nor equivalent in any way

It's totally comparable. Read the thread again to see why.

frozenfrozen

Benevolent Misanthrope wrote: »

So you have no explanation for why the Garda accelerated at the bike in an intimidatory fashion @25 seconds?

You just had to say so.

Are you just looking for an argument? If you want to see what I said on this thread already be my guest and read though the whole thing.

2RockMountain

frozenfrozen wrote: »

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.

It’s slightly difficult to take your concern for ‘consideration for other road users’ seriously when you keep saying that the driver didn’t do anything wrong in attempting to overtake without leaving reasonable passing space, and a long way off the 1.5m specified by the RSA.
It is also clear from your comment about "AM I BEING DETAINED" people that you seem to have a problem with people who assert their rights. Sorry if this is bad news, but you need to get over this. The cyclist should have asked the Garda 1) Are you on duty 2) Is this an emergency 3) What is your badge number. That would presumably have horrified you, but would have been a great approach from my point of view. It would ensure that the Garda would think twice about bullying or abusing his authority next time.

frozenfrozen wrote: »

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.

‘Inviting an overtake’? Like the girl with the short skirt and the six drinks was ‘inviting’ the rape? Or the young guy in the wrong part of town late at night was ‘inviting’ the stabbing?
This is just victim-blaming – because you don’t like the idea that the cyclist is assertive and standing up for himself. He moved out by 30cm – 50cm and any discussion about why he moved out is pure speculalation.

frozenfrozen wrote: »

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.

Is this the real world where drivers ignore the published advice from the RSA which has got heavy rotation for the last three years? You don’t get to excuse crappy driving by calling it ‘real world’.

frozenfrozen wrote: »

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.

No-one has suggested that the car is fake. There have been questions about how come the car is not on registration databases. No-one has shut you down either – but it seems that you treat any question or challenge to your position as an attack. Stop playing the victim card please.
And they aren’t ‘his other videos’ – they are the other videos on the same channel, which may or may not involve the same cyclist.

frozenfrozen wrote: »

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

Because they point out the importance of leaving 1.5m passing space when overtaking a cyclist.

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.

Are you watching the same video as the rest of us? The driver tried to overtake when he clearly didn’t have enough room to do so safely, and you think he ‘did nothing wrong’? Where’s that ‘real world’ you were talking about.

frozenfrozen wrote: »

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.

Once again, are you watching the same video as the rest of us? The driver tried to overtake when he clearly didn’t have enough room to do so safely, and you think he ‘did nothing wrong’?

Benevolent Misanthrope

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Are you just looking for an argument? If you want to see what I said on this thread already be my guest and read though the whole thing.

I'm not looking for an argument, I was wondering how you could say the Garda was 'definitely' not waving around his badge to intimidate the cyclist, even though he had just very clearly driven AT the cyclist in a deliberately intimidatory fashion.

I can see that you don't want to or can't address the point, so I'll leave it there rather than derail the thread.

07Lapierre

2RockMountain wrote: »

By comparing it against the size of the bike and the cargo box.

What size is the bike and bike box?

2RockMountain

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

My post refers only to the car and where shadow plates are in use you won't find any information on the car through normal searches. That's the point of them. I don't know if they exist in Ireland but security measures such as that don't have to be shared publically. That's the whole point of them - security and anonymity of the occupant. I worked abroad and some diplomatic /counsular staff of certain countries had them on their official and private cars so that these cars would not stand out from 'ordinary' cars. Behind the normal plate of that country, was the diplomatic (cd) plate. Only senior police had access to the true id of the car (again for legitimate security reasons)

My point is that if such a situation exists here, it should indeed be shared publically. Security through obscurity doesn't work. Legislation is in the public domain, so if some people are allows flaunt the law for security or other reasons, this requires (by definition) legislation to allow this.

Tigger wrote: »

i said earlier that it isn't a state car i was mistaken
it is a state car as it has alternating lights and its not listed on motorcheck so the car had every right to be in the bus lane.

its not currently the law to give 1.5m so if the driver had overtaken in the same lane he would have been in the right. also while taking the lane is probably good practice the cyclist hadn't taken the lane so shouldn't have done it at that point.

Tigger wrote: »

i said earlier that it isn't a state car i was mistaken
it is a state car as it has alternating lights and its not listed on motorcheck so the car had every right to be in the bus lane.

The flashing could be a safety feature;
http://www.audi.com/com/brand/en/vorsprung_durch_technik/content/2013/10/audi-a8-in-a-new-radiant-light.html

As soon as a pedestrian is detected in a critical range in front of the vehicle, individual LEDs flash briefly three times in succession to alert that person, who is then clearly visible to the driver.

But regardless, state cars have no particular rights on the road.

frozenfrozen

2RockMountain wrote: »

It’s slightly difficult to take your concern for ‘consideration for other road users’ seriously when you keep saying that the driver didn’t do anything wrong in attempting to overtake without leaving reasonable passing space, and a long way off the 1.5m specified by the RSA.
It is also clear from your comment about "AM I BEING DETAINED" people that you seem to have a problem with people who assert their rights. Sorry if this is bad news, but you need to get over this. The cyclist should have asked the Garda 1) Are you on duty 2) Is this an emergency 3) What is your badge number. That would presumably have horrified you, but would have been a great approach from my point of view. It would ensure that the Garda would think twice about bullying or abusing his authority next time.

I'm sorry are you calling me out for reading someone's mind and also attempting to read my mind and suggest I have a problem with people 'assert their rights' End of.

‘Inviting an overtake’? Like the girl with the short skirt and the six drinks was ‘inviting’ the rape? Or the young guy in the wrong part of town late at night was ‘inviting’ the stabbing?
This is just victim-blaming – because you don’t like the idea that the cyclist is assertive and standing up for himself. He moved out by 30cm – 50cm and any discussion about why he moved out is pure speculalation.

Yawn, is that the third time rape has been brought into this? Victim-blaming - unreal. Again you're projecting some cyclist-hatred trait onto me. Give up with the specualalation of where I stand on the issue and actually reply to things I've said.

Is this the real world where drivers ignore the published advice from the RSA which has got heavy rotation for the last three years? You don’t get to excuse crappy driving by calling it ‘real world’.

??? Are you writing a novel? Again, either reply to something I've said or write fiction on your own time and don't involve me.

No-one has suggested that the car is fake. There have been questions about how come the car is not on registration databases. No-one has shut you down either – but it seems that you treat any question or challenge to your position as an attack. Stop playing the victim card please.
And they aren’t ‘his other videos’ – they are the other videos on the same channel, which may or may not involve the same cyclist.

No-one shut down the conversation about the riders other videos? I recall a mod post calling a halt to it.

Oh right they aren't his other videos -- gotcha :rolleyes:

Now I'm playing the victim card? I thought I was victim blaming? Make up your mind.

Because they point out the importance of leaving 1.5m passing space when overtaking a cyclist.

???? Again, we're talking about this video, an ad campaign in wexford is irrelevant

Are you watching the same video as the rest of us? The driver tried to overtake when he clearly didn’t have enough room to do so safely, and you think he ‘did nothing wrong’? Where’s that ‘real world’ you were talking about.

He did nothing wrong until the bike blocked him. He was more courteous than most, that's where real world comes into it.

Once again, are you watching the same video as the rest of us? The driver tried to overtake when he clearly didn’t have enough room to do so safely, and you think he ‘did nothing wrong’?

He did nothing wrong up until the bike blocked him, yes. I think you might be watching the video with cyclist-tinted glasses. After all you seem to be fairly game for protecting him by suggesting it's not him in the other videos of him acting like a prick

pedro_colnago

2 egos and a camera. If it wasn't recorded on a camera, who would give a toss? Who cares at the end of the day?
These are the combined joys of the Internet and gopro cameras . I envisage a wonderful future of seeing this type of inane cyclist v motorist crap online and people on their high horses giving their opinions on it.
this kinda stuff has gone on every day since cyclists and drivers started meeting on the roads and the combination of cameras and the Internet gives a platform for the emergence of mass hysteria and white noise that emerges with it. I'm bored of it already.
I cycle, I also drive, ive made mistakes doing both, as indeed we all have. I can't say I like the idea of human error being uploaded and viewed and commented on or judged on by anyone else. Il leave that to judges in court

pedro_colnago

2RockMountain wrote: »

My point is that if such a situation exists here, it should indeed be shared publically. Security through obscurity doesn't work. Legislation is in the public domain, so if some people are allows flaunt the law for security or other reasons, this requires (by definition) legislation to allow t
The flashing could be a safety feature;
http://www.audi.com/com/brand/en/vorsprung_durch_technik/content/2013/10/audi-a8-in-a-new-radiant-light.html

But regardless, state cars have no particular rights on the road.

Hmmmmm do I detected an anti garda bias yet again? There appears to be a pattern emerging here.

spurious

Is it not the case that however annoying, the cyclist is quite entitled to cycle in the middle of the bus lane and is breaking no law by doing so (presuming cycles are allowed in the bus lane)?

Chips Lovell

This thread is starting to generate more heat than light. If that continues, we may have to lock her up before too long.

If you have something constructive to say, get in there before its too late.

droidus

Do it now Jep.

pedro_colnago

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

This thread is starting to generate more heat than light. If that continues, we may have to lock her up before too long.

If you have something constructive to say, get in there before its too late.

Make it quick, I'm fed up of it already. We are now in a world where much ado about nothing will be put up on line in the form of footage and will be debated ad infinitum by people with various biases. Tianimen square footage it certainly isn't

2RockMountain

pedro_colnago wrote: »

Hmmmmm do I detected an anti garda bias yet again? There appears to be a pattern emerging here.

How did you jump from a basic expectation that the laws of the land are available to the public to 'anti garda bias'? It's just the most basic of civil rights.

2RockMountain

pedro_colnago wrote: »

Make it quick, I'm fed up of it already. We are now in a world where much ado about nothing will be put up on line in the form of footage and will be debated ad infinitum by people with various biases. Tianimen square footage it certainly isn't

You know that you don't have to watch the videos or read the discussions, don't you?

pedro_colnago

2RockMountain wrote: »

How did you jump from a basic expectation that the laws of the land are available to the public to 'anti garda bias'? It's just the most basic of civil rights.

Not just that comment, it's a common thread running thru a lot of what you say