Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Near misses - mod warning 22/04 - see OP/post 822

1…197198200202203…328

Comments

  • #5972
    Mc Love
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,015 ✭✭✭✭Mc Love


    Felexicon wrote: »
    Are you using this as some kind of qualifying mark for why you're point should be taken more seriously?

    By cycling slowly? Come off it. Didn't look like he was in a mad rush to get away from the taxi.


  • #5973
    muckwarrior
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,118 ✭✭✭muckwarrior


    Mc Love wrote: »
    By cycling slowly? Come off it. Didn't look like he was in a mad rush to get away from the taxi.

    How the hell do you know how big of a rush he was in? You have no idea how long the taxi was chasing him or how tired he was at that point. Also, he probably wasn't expecting the taxi to follow him through the lights.


  • #5974
    Mc Love
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,015 ✭✭✭✭Mc Love


    muckwarrior wrote: »
    How the hell do you know how big of a rush he was in? You have no idea how long the taxi was chasing him or how tired he was at that point. Also, he probably wasn't expecting the taxi to follow him through the lights.

    Neither do any of us.

    Jesus wept


  • #5975
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,385 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Mc Love wrote: »
    Neither do any of us.

    Jesus wept

    But yet you continue to criticise a cyclist being chased by a car who is willing to drive the wrong way towards junctions and mount footpaths with pedestrians walking on them.


  • #5976
    Mc Love
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,015 ✭✭✭✭Mc Love


    Hurrache wrote: »
    But yet you continue to criticise a cyclist being chased by a car who is willing to drive the wrong way towards junctions and mount footpaths with pedestrians walking on them.

    I criticised both participants. Both of them are in the wrong, there's no right person in the video.


  • Advertisement
  • #5977
    Felexicon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,463 ✭✭✭Felexicon


    Mc Love wrote: »
    I criticised both participants. Both of them are in the wrong, there's no right person in the video.

    Ah there is to be fair.


  • #5978
    benjamin d
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 921 ✭✭✭benjamin d


    Mc Love wrote: »
    I criticised both participants. Both of them are in the wrong, there's no right person in the video.

    If an axe wielding maniac ever breaks into your house in the middle of the night I hope you're prosecuted for disturbing the peace with your screams. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that, you'd both be in the wrong.


  • #5979
    uncommon_name
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 416 ✭✭uncommon_name


    Mc Love wrote: »
    I criticised both participants. Both of them are in the wrong, there's no right person in the video.

    Very silly comment in my opinion. What did the cyclist do that you can see in the video. Nothing except try avoid the lunatic taxi driver hitting him.
    Taxi driver is completely in the wrong. If someone does something wrong on the road you beep them to tell them they're an idiot and you keep driving. You don't try and kill them.


  • #5980
    Mc Love
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,015 ✭✭✭✭Mc Love


    Felexicon wrote: »
    Ah there is to be fair.

    Yep the person with the dash cam


  • #5981
    Mc Love
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,015 ✭✭✭✭Mc Love


    uncommon_name wrote: »
    Very silly comment in my opinion. What did the cyclist do that you can see in the video. Nothing except try avoid the lunatic taxi driver hitting him.
    Taxi driver is completely in the wrong. If someone does something wrong on the road you beep them to tell them they're an idiot and you keep driving. You don't try and kill them.

    You cant see anything the cyclist did wrong in the video? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #5982
    italodisco
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭italodisco


    Mc Love wrote: »
    Neither do any of us.

    Jesus wept

    2 points here..

    1- there is no 'jesus'

    2-even if a cyclist punched me through the car window I still wouldn't drive across a main street to try run him over and proceed to a footpath where pedestrians are.

    I would, however, as a cyclist, absolutely anhialate any clown in a car that tried a stunt like that on me or another cyclist on the road ahead of me


  • #5983
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,498 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Mc Love wrote: »
    The cyclist should have stopped at the first set of lights.

    Maybe ihe was being chased for a while by the taxi. Look at the video. Would you hang around with a psycho like that after you?


  • #5984
    uncommon_name
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 416 ✭✭uncommon_name


    Mc Love wrote: »
    You cant see anything the cyclist did wrong in the video? :confused:

    Went through a red light. To get away from the taxi. Nothing wrong with that.
    Then switched sides of the road, again to get away from him.
    He was never going to injure anyone on his bike, but the taxi could have. :pac:


  • #5985
    Zulu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Mc Love wrote: »
    You cant see anything the cyclist did wrong in the video? :confused:
    Mc Love, stop digging. What you are attempting to do is so pathetically stoopid it's beyond farcical.



    You're wrong. Everyone knows you're wrong. Deep down, you know you're wrong.


  • #5986
    Mc Love
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,015 ✭✭✭✭Mc Love


    Zulu wrote: »
    Mc Love, stop digging. What you are attempting to do is so pathetically stoopid it's beyond farcical.
    You're wrong. Everyone knows you're wrong. Deep down, you know you're wrong.

    Let me spell it out for you:
    No-one on this thread knows what happened before they showed up on the cam.

    What we do know:
    Cyclist followed by insane taxi driver break the red light (both in the wrong in the eyes of the law), taxi driver encroaches on the cyclist in the cycle lane (taxi driver displaying dangerous driving), cyclist drives on the other side of the road (luckily no oncoming traffic & wrong in the eyes of the law), insane possibly drunk taxi driver crosses to the other side of the road to cause harm to the cyclist (wrong in the eyes of the law), cyclist mounts pavement (also wrong in the eyes of the law) followed by the insane taxi driver who also mounts the pavement (wrong in the eyes of the law)

    The fact of the matter is we dont know what happened between the two prior to the video, but what we do know is that both broke the law.


  • #5987
    Macy0161
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,672 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    False equivalence summed up in one post right there...


  • #5988
    uncommon_name
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 416 ✭✭uncommon_name


    Mc Love wrote: »
    Let me spell it out for you:
    No-one on this thread knows what happened before they showed up on the cam.

    What we do know:
    Cyclist followed by insane taxi driver break the red light (both in the wrong in the eyes of the law), taxi driver encroaches on the cyclist in the cycle lane (taxi driver displaying dangerous driving), cyclist drives on the other side of the road (luckily no oncoming traffic & wrong in the eyes of the law), insane possibly drunk taxi driver crosses to the other side of the road to cause harm to the cyclist (wrong in the eyes of the law), cyclist mounts pavement (also wrong in the eyes of the law) followed by the insane taxi driver who also mounts the pavement (wrong in the eyes of the law)

    The fact of the matter is we dont know what happened between the two prior to the video, but what we do know is that both broke the law.

    Yes, wrong in the eyes of the law. But do you think any court would turn around to the cyclist and say what you done was wrong, you should never have crossed to the wrong side of the road to try and get away from this mad man over here. What were you thinking?
    What the cyclist done was perfectly fine. If someone was chasing you down the road trying to rob you, you aren't going to stop at the pedestrian crossing, hit the button and wait for the little green man are you?


  • #5989
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Mc Love wrote: »
    Let me spell it out for you:
    No-one on this thread knows what happened before they showed up on the cam.

    What we do know:
    Cyclist followed by insane taxi driver break the red light (both in the wrong in the eyes of the law), taxi driver encroaches on the cyclist in the cycle lane (taxi driver displaying dangerous driving), cyclist drives on the other side of the road (luckily no oncoming traffic & wrong in the eyes of the law), insane possibly drunk taxi driver crosses to the other side of the road to cause harm to the cyclist (wrong in the eyes of the law), cyclist mounts pavement (also wrong in the eyes of the law) followed by the insane taxi driver who also mounts the pavement (wrong in the eyes of the law)

    The fact of the matter is we dont know what happened between the two prior to the video, but what we do know is that both broke the law.

    You should read up on the defense of duress
    "threats of immediate death or serious personal violence so great as to overbear the ordinary power of human resistance should be accepted as a justification for acts which would otherwise be criminal.”


  • #5990
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    Is nobody going to mention the jaywalker at the end! yet another one "wrong in the eyes of the law".

    Several pedestrians look like they are possibly breaking red lights.

    Sure they are all as bad as each other!


  • #5991
    Mc Love
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,015 ✭✭✭✭Mc Love


    uncommon_name wrote: »
    Yes, wrong in the eyes of the law. But do you think any court would turn around to the cyclist and say what you done was wrong, you should never have crossed to the wrong side of the road to try and get away from this mad man over here. What were you thinking?
    What the cyclist done was perfectly fine. If someone was chasing you down the road trying to rob you, you aren't going to stop at the pedestrian crossing, hit the button and wait for the little green man are you?

    Why would I hit the button for the little green man if I'm on a bike? Does it make it right that I break a light if there's a threat on my life? No but in those circumstances you would have to break the law.

    Do you know if the taxi driver was actively trying to kill him? Or just injure/scare the cyclist? Seeing as you know so much about the incident.
    "threats of immediate death or serious personal violence so great as to overbear the ordinary power of human resistance should be accepted as a justification for acts which would otherwise be criminal.”

    Yep you've said it - the act is criminal, finally getting through. But if it is under duress, that criminal act is justified but peaches being peaches, its still a criminal act.
    rubadub wrote: »
    Is nobody going to mention the jaywalker at the end! yet another one "wrong in the eyes of the law".

    Several pedestrians look like they are possibly breaking red lights.

    Sure they are all as bad as each other!

    I was going to mention it, but if someone was chasing you down the road trying to rob you, you aren't going to stop at the pedestrian crossing, hit the button and wait for the little green man are you?


  • Advertisement
  • #5992
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,498 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Boards really opens my eyes to how strange some peoples minds work.


  • #5993
    Mc Love
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,015 ✭✭✭✭Mc Love


    Fighting Tao wrote: »
    Boards really opens my eyes to how strange some peoples minds work.

    Dont go over to After Hours - your mind will be blown


  • #5994
    Ray Bloody Purchase
    Closed Accounts Posts: 689 ✭✭✭Ray Bloody Purchase


    You can only ever be right or wrong on the internet. Nothing inbetween. :D


  • #5995
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Mc Love wrote: »

    Yep you've said it - the act is criminal, finally getting through. But if it is under duress, that criminal act is justified but peaches being peaches, its still a criminal act.



    But everyone knows that, everyone knows that breaking a red light is against the law. You, however, seem to be equating the actions taxi-driver and the cyclist as being equally wrong when that it not the case.

    The cyclist was completely justified is his actions on the clip, irrespective of what happened before.


  • #5996
    Mc Love
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,015 ✭✭✭✭Mc Love


    amcalester wrote: »
    But everyone knows that, everyone knows that breaking a red light is against the law. You, however, seem to be equating the actions taxi-driver and the cyclist as being equally wrong when that it not the case.

    The cyclist was completely justified is his actions on the clip, irrespective of what happened before.

    I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree.


  • #5997
    xckjoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,489 ✭✭✭xckjoo


    Mc Love wrote: »
    I was going to mention it, but if someone was chasing you down the road trying to rob you, you aren't going to stop at the pedestrian crossing, hit the button and wait for the little green man are you?


    Do we have a jaywalking law in Ireland?


  • #5998
    RobertFoster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,394 ✭✭✭RobertFoster


    Weepsie wrote: »
    You're supposed to cross at a crossing if it is within 15 ft / metres? Can't remember which one.
    Metres: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print#article46
    (7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.


  • #5999
    randomname2005
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,079 ✭✭✭randomname2005


    Felexicon wrote: »
    Ah there is to be fair.

    If looking at the video in isolation, there is.

    If looking at the video and considering the range of things that could have happened previously, there still is but it becomes more vague. What could a cyclist possibly have done to warrant that kind of behaviour - scratched the paint , broken a light? Neither of those demand the kind of blatant disregard for 3rd party safety that the taxi driver showed. I can't see there being structural damage to the taxi given that the cyclist would have needed to hit the car hard to cause a lot of damage (dents etc).

    But that level of damage in a different context - if your car was scratched or a light broken in a car park by another car and the driver drove off, would you put their life in as much danger? And would you endanger other members of the public?


  • #6000
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,385 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    One of the papers doorstepped the driver, he claimed the cyclist broke his wing mirror and justified his actions because of that claim.


  • Advertisement
  • #6001
    buffalo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,167 ✭✭✭buffalo


    Hurrache wrote: »
    One of the papers doorstepped the driver, he claimed the cyclist broke his wing mirror and justified his actions because of that claim.

    Video's not great quality, but the passenger side looks like it's been pushed in. Hard to tell if it's broken though - doesn't look like it's hanging off or missing certainly.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement