Cyclist assaulted

KathleenF

No problem strangling a cyclist if you're a businessman and can pay up, it would appear.

https://t.co/0nlI0QU8U7

neris

And your under stress

Effects

I don't like cyclists on the path but he did go totally over the top. Hate the cobbles on that street though! Cyclists on paths should always give way though.

seamus

Effects wrote: »

I don't like cyclists on the path but he did go totally over the top. Hate the cobbles on that street though! Cyclists on paths should always give way though.

At that time the other side of the bridge was actually blocked by construction works so the only way through was on the path.
Which means he should obviously have dismounted and walked through, but there's no excuse for pushing him off, let alone beating the crap out of him.

Separate from that, that street is a bit of a disaster overall, both cyclists and pedestrians just do what they want - lots of peds prefer the middle of the road and lots of bikes prefer the path. They should realistically close as much of the road as they can either side of the rail bridge, remove the cobbles and make it a shared use space. Then everyone can just take it easy and not get into conflicts.

brianomc

KathleenF wrote: »

No problem strangling a cyclist if you're a businessman and can pay up, it would appear.

https://t.co/0nlI0QU8U7

In this case the cyclist said he'd be be happy to get his teeth paid for and move on. So you can't really blame the judge on this one. If the victim doesn't want to press charges that's pretty much the end of it. The judge went over the victims wishes with the donation to the poor box.

I can't see myself being so forgiving if it happened me.

KathleenF

Effects wrote: »

I don't like cyclists on the path but he did go totally over the top. Hate the cobbles on that street though! Cyclists on paths should always give way though.

I'd agree with that. Cyclists on the pavement really, really irritate me. I can understand standing your ground and forcing a cyclist to dismount, but the offender here had no cause to react as he did. How he got the Probation Act for an assault like that is beyond me.

Jimmy Garlic

He got what he deserved. Cyclists in Dublin are arrogant, even anti-social some of them. They deserve some comeuppance.

alaimacerc

"Disproportionate"? Y'think!? Cycling on the footpath carries a penalty of a small fine. Assault with bodily harm is an unlimited fine, or up to five years inside. The idea that one is occasion for the other is obscene, and "using the poor box" for such an offence is a travesty of justice.

Tenzor07

Picture of the so called "Executive" during the assault:

Jimmy Garlic

alaimacerc wrote: »

"Disproportionate"? Y'think!? Cycling on the footpath carries a penalty of a small fine. Assault with bodily harm is an unlimited fine, or up to five years inside. The idea that one is occasion for the other is obscene, and "using the poor box" for such an offence is a travesty of justice.

Just a little bit of fisticuffs i'm sure. There are cyclists that go around Dublin like it is Saigon. The behaviour of a lot of them shows a total disregard for everyone around them. Inevitable that someone will snap once in a while. Maybe the man was barged off the path once too often. Understandable really.

Hunterbiker

Seems the Judge took into account the victims stance of just wanting his out of pocket expense sorted so he can just put all this behind him. I'm sure if the victim impact / the victim's attitude was stronger the end result would have been firmer.
I'm not saying that is right though.

alaimacerc

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Just a little bit of fisticuffs i'm sure. There are cyclists that go around Dublin like it is Saigon. The behaviour of a lot of them shows a total disregard for everyone around them. Inevitable that someone will snap once in a while. Maybe the man was barged off the path once too often. Understandable really.

Eh, nope. Unprovoked ABH is not "understandable". Cop yourself ever-so-slightly on.

Tenzor07

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Just a little bit of fisticuffs i'm sure. There are cyclists that go around Dublin like it is Saigon. The behaviour of a lot of them shows a total disregard for everyone around them. Inevitable that someone will snap once in a while. Maybe the man was barged off the path once too often. Understandable really.

Ah now, let's compare apples to apples!

Saigon:



Scene of the assault:

buffalo

KathleenF wrote: »

No problem strangling a cyclist if you're a businessman and can pay up, it would appear.

https://t.co/0nlI0QU8U7

I'm confused about how you got from €6.5k costs to 'no problem'.

whisky_galore

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to snap, judging by all the invective on social media and elsewhere.

punisher5112

Over the years I have had numerous close calls with cyclists while I have been walking.
I have been unlucky enough to have been clipped twice once on the path and once crossing on a green man with lots of other pedestrians also crossing where cyclist swerved through a gap and of course I had to be the other side.

I was hit in the leg by the forks and chest and he went on his way laughing as he looked back.

SteM

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Just a little bit of fisticuffs i'm sure. There are cyclists that go around Dublin like it is Saigon. The behaviour of a lot of them shows a total disregard for everyone around them. Inevitable that someone will snap once in a while. Maybe the man was barged off the path once too often. Understandable really.

So because there are some bad cyclists it's okay for him to assault one? I've been put in potential harms way by drivers, cyclists & pedestrians at various times. Would it be understandable if I started beating someone in the future?

alaimacerc

Hunterbiker wrote: »

Seems the Judge took into account the victims stance of just wanting his out of pocket expense sorted so he can just put all this behind him. I'm sure if the victim impact / the victim's attitude was stronger the end result would have been firmer.
I'm not saying that is right though.

I'm not sure of the details of how this works, I must admit. Does this mechanism mean he gets his compo, when otherwise he wouldn't? Or gets it more quickly and easily, as compared to... I'm not sure, again: criminal injuries tribunal? Civil lawsuit?

dermabrasion

Is there a troll? I think there's a troll.

SteM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Ah now, let's compare apples to apples!

Saigon:



Scene of the assault:

I just realised what road it is. I go down it every day on the way to work. I hate that street.

magicbastarder

brianomc wrote: »

If the victim doesn't want to press charges that's pretty much the end of it. The judge went over the victims wishes with the donation to the poor box.

as should be the case, though. it's one of the functions of the justice system, to take the role of punishment away from the victim. if the victim does not want to press charges, there may be a public interest in proceeding anyway.

magicbastarder

dermabrasion wrote: »

Is there a troll? I think there's a troll.

the worst kind too. not even entertaining.

alaimacerc

punisher5112 wrote: »

Over the years I have had numerous close calls with cyclists while I have been walking.
I have been unlucky enough to have been clipped twice once on the path and once crossing on a green man with lots of other pedestrians also crossing where cyclist swerved through a gap and of course I had to be the other side.

I was hit in the leg by the forks and chest and he went on his way laughing as he looked back.

Well, that's bang out of order, very clearly. I've been known to use footpaths on occasion, though generally when they're pretty much empty and there's no sensible other route, but at the very least, one should have the minimal grace to recognise that one is in the "wrong", and make sure that one gives any pedestrians plenty of space, stops for them if necessary, acts suitably apologetic and sheepish, etc.

Hunterbiker

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not sure of the details of how this works, I must admit. Does this mechanism mean he gets his compo, when otherwise he wouldn't? Or gets it more quickly and easily, as compared to... I'm not sure, again: criminal injuries tribunal? Civil lawsuit?

Not sure. There may be a case of compo but this would be a civil case. The case reported is a criminal one. As the victim appears to just want an end to things the judge has gone down the route of the poor box - this means no criminal record so the matter is fully closed subject to paying the money. Should he not pay up the conviction will be on file and likely a sentence would follow. He'd have to declare the conviction on forms / work / all sorts of stuff until it was spent.

ted1

punisher5112 wrote: »

Over the years I have had numerous close calls with cyclists while I have been walking.
I have been unlucky enough to have been clipped twice once on the path and once crossing on a green man with lots of other pedestrians also crossing where cyclist swerved through a gap and of course I had to be the other side.

I was hit in the leg by the forks and chest and he went on his way laughing as he looked back.

I have being hit by pedestrians stepping off the road, into the road or cycle path What's your point?

ebbsy

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

He got what he deserved. Cyclists in Dublin are arrogant, even anti-social some of them. They deserve some comeuppance.

+1

Jimmy Garlic

SteM wrote: »

So because there are some bad cyclists it's okay for him to assault one? I've been put in potential harms way by drivers, cyclists & pedestrians at various times. Would it be understandable if I started beating someone in the future?

I wouldn't advise you to do that but depending on the situation it might be understandable. Happens every day in major cities. Someone gets sick of someone elses anti-social behaviour, snaps, a few slaps, nothing serious. A day in court. A fine or whatever. Everyone goes home.

Jawgap

buffalo wrote: »

I'm confused about how you got from €6.5k costs to 'no problem'.

I think the point is that if it had been someone who didn't have the means to cough up that kind of cash, would they have been let skate out without a conviction being recorded?

Or put it another way, if I as a cyclist on my way this evening encounter a pedestrian meandering across the road without looking and I'm forced to brake hard to avoid a collision can I, at a cost of €6.5k, get off my bike wrestle them to the ground in head lock and inflict significant injury on them?

mrcheez

Next up: armed cyclists

Jawgap

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

I wouldn't advise you to do that but depending on the situation it might be understandable. Happens every day in major cities. Someone gets sick of someone elses anti-social behaviour, snaps, a few slaps, nothing serious. A day in court. A fine or whatever. Everyone goes home.

Eh, you do know a 'fine' implies a conviction? In this case they perp is being let buy his way out of the conviction!

Jawgap

mrcheez wrote: »

Next up: armed cyclists

f.... Yeah!!!

alaimacerc

buffalo wrote: »

I'm confused about how you got from €6.5k costs to 'no problem'.

If you assault someone causing 4K of medical expenses, then total "costs" of 6.5k, no jail time, and no criminal record is a bargain, frankly.

endacl

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

He got what he deserved. Cyclists in Dublin are arrogant, even anti-social some of them. They deserve some comeuppance.

Well. That's me told. I'm arrogant.

magicbastarder

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

He got what he deserved. Cyclists in Dublin are arrogant, even anti-social some of them. They deserve some comeuppance.

this post is arrogant and antisocial. where does that leave us?

Jawgap

endacl wrote: »

Well. That's me told. I'm arrogant.

Thankfully, as someone who cycles a fair bit in Meath, I'm happy to report that outside the Pale arrogance is not a problem among cyclists......

alaimacerc

ebbsy wrote: »

+1

Uh-oh, we have another one.

What's the correct collective noun? I've seen the suggestions "trollop", "creche", "stench", and "actually", but what about an "embridgement"?

magicbastarder

interesting comments from the judge though.

Judge Walsh noted Corcoran first saw Mr Fitzgerald approaching on his bike when he was 20 feet away and said he could have stood back to let him by.

The judge accepted it can be annoying but said “we live in a congested city and sometimes needs must”.

usually the cyclist is criticised over an utterly trivial point, but the judge was relatively robust here in dismissing any flash point which caused the reaction.

brianomc

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

He got what he deserved. Cyclists in Dublin are arrogant, even anti-social some of them. They deserve some comeuppance.

Insert taxi drivers/white van man/car drivers/pedestrians/teenagers/junkies in place of cyclists. Have I left anybody out, not to worry, I'm heading out now to get my revenge on all the above. See you in court bitches!!!!!!

To sum that up, that's some generalisation you've got going on there.

endacl

alaimacerc wrote: »

Uh-oh, we have another one.

What's the correct collective noun? I've seen the suggestions "trollop", "creche", "stench", and "actually", but what about an "embridgement"?

A 'pointless'.

SteM

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

I wouldn't advise you to do that but depending on the situation it might be understandable. Happens every day in major cities. Someone gets sick of someone elses anti-social behaviour, snaps, a few slaps, nothing serious. A day in court. A fine or whatever. Everyone goes home.

If you go looking for trouble sometimes you'll find more than you bargained for, I wonder will this fella try it on again in the future. Plenty of couriers use this route, I'm guessing this lad didn't pick on one of those people, the outcome would have been different.

alaimacerc

Hunterbiker wrote: »

Not sure. There may be a case of compo but this would be a civil case. The case reported is a criminal one. As the victim appears to just want an end to things the judge has gone down the route of the poor box - this means no criminal record so the matter is fully closed subject to paying the money. Should he not pay up the conviction will be on file and likely a sentence would follow. He'd have to declare the conviction on forms / work / all sorts of stuff until it was spent.

It's somewhat unfortunate if victims of criminal assaults, especially if they're of limited means, are incentivised to "grin and bear it" to get some modest compensation, if it means the perps of fairly serious violence thereby get away with it.

Zillah

I think cyclists should be allowed on the footpath, but must always cede right of way to pedestrians. Right of way is the only thing that should ever really matter to be honest. In this case the cyclist was a jerk. He didn't deserve to be assaulted of course.

Personally I find the money end of it the most uncomfortable part. I know the victim said he just wanted his expenses paid for, which is fair enough, and makes this one of the less egregious examples, but what if the defendant was dirt poor? Does he go to prison because he doesn't have a few grand to spare?

Civil court exists to extract monetary recompense - criminal justice shouldn't allow people to trade money for punishment.

Zillah

endacl wrote: »

A 'pointless'.

Wretch. A wretch of trolls.

KathleenF

buffalo wrote: »

I'm confused about how you got from €6.5k costs to 'no problem'.

Seriously? He directly inflicted 4K of damage on his victim. He was ordered to pay 2.5k to the poor box. He's described as a senior businessman, so I'd imagine paying out €6.5k isn't a massive stretch for him. By doing that, he's avoided jail time AND a conviction. In terms of potential consequences for an unprovoked* violent assault, he's gotten away very lightly.


*To clarify - the cyclist was definitely in the wrong, but in no way deserved the beating he got.

galwaycyclist

alaimacerc wrote: »

"Disproportionate"? Y'think!? Cycling on the footpath carries a penalty of a small fine. Assault with bodily harm is an unlimited fine, or up to five years inside. The idea that one is occasion for the other is obscene, and "using the poor box" for such an offence is a travesty of justice.

And that is a problem for elderly people or people with small children adults cycling on footpaths is a serious threat.

In my view it should be equated in law with other forms of threatening behaviour.

I know of elderly ladies with osteoporosis in Galway city centre who feel threatened and trapped in their houses by the presence of adult males on bicycles on footpaths.

I feel it is a pity that more people don't stand up to these characters.

ted1

Zillah wrote: »

I think cyclists should be allowed on the footpath, but must always cede right of way to pedestrians. .

Kids yes, but I don't see why adults need to go on a path. I commute daily into the city centre and have never had to go on a path yet I see plenty that do. If something is blocking your way , go around it.

Chiparus

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Picture of the so called "Executive" during the assault:

whisky_galore

Zillah wrote: »

I think cyclists should be allowed on the footpath, but must always cede right of way to pedestrians. Right of way is the only thing that should ever really matter to be honest. In this case the cyclist was a jerk. He didn't deserve to be assaulted of course.

No, just no. It would be mayhem.

You think people would actually cede right of way in reality?
We don't do civic responsibility in this country, people here don't even pick up the sh*te from their own dog here.

Greenmachine

Clearly the guy assaulting they cyclist was bang out of order even though the cyclist should not have been on the path.

All too common here not only to see cyclist on paths or moderately congested pedestrian street but to see them throttling along weaving between people.
Been in other countries with much better dedicated cycle path networks running on one side of the path and cyclist there travel slower, conscious of the fact their cycle paths meet pedestrian crossing and that cyclist could be approaching in the opposite direction, not something you tend to see in Ireland.

Fian

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's somewhat unfortunate if victims of criminal assaults, especially if they're of limited means, are incentivised to "grin and bear it" to get some modest compensation, if it means the perps of fairly serious violence thereby get away with it.

This particular victim will not be precluded from bringing a civil case as well if he chooses to. The Irish times reports the costs going towards replacing his dentures, which suggests that the victim was already using dentures. Which in turn suggest he was not the most robust potential victim available to this assaulter.

sconhome

alaimacerc wrote: »

Uh-oh, we have another one.

What's the correct collective noun? I've seen the suggestions "trollop", "creche", "stench", and "actually", but what about an "embridgement"?

I like a 'putrefaction' of Trolls from here:

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090109062218AA0he3o