Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

magicbastarder · 23-08-2020 04:46PM

i have twice been accused by motorists of vehicular assault for tapping on their cars. well, one was a full open handed slap, to be fair.

Spook_ie · 23-08-2020 05:29PM

micar wrote: »

Hardly........

If the car was keyed, tyres slashed, Windows smashed, sugar put into the fuel tank....then yes.

But something written on the window......no

I've tapped cars (very rare) if they moved into my lane without looking to let them know I'm there.........some motorits would clasify that as criminal damage......it's ok for them to almost hit me but it's not ok for me to make them aware that I'm there. "How dare you touch my car?"

"sure from the comments you'd think he should have been hung, drawn and quartered."

No....but he could be called out for it. Should have more cop on.

If that is marker pen rather than the claimed lipstick then it's criminal damage, do you think it's lipstick or marker pen, to me it looks like marker pen.

micar · 23-08-2020 05:40PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

If that is marker pen rather than the claimed lipstick then it's criminal damage, do you think it's lipstick or marker pen, to me it looks like marker pen.

Quick search on Google......hand sanitizer will work.

Think we all have multiple bottles of it at home and a bottle in the car.

If someone gets clamped, the ticket is put into a pouch and stuck onto the drivers window.

The glue is a b1tch to get off.

Would you consider that criminal damage.

Spook_ie · 23-08-2020 05:56PM

I've never had a problem removing parking ticket pouches, maybe they use different glue where you illegally park.

Anyways

2.—(1) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another—

(a) intending to damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be damaged, and

(b) intending by the damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered,

shall be guilty of an offence.

I would think that unless they had checked if the driver had hand sanitizer in his car, the perpetrator was reckless in that they hindered the drivers vision.

Spook_ie · 23-08-2020 06:04PM

Also according to Garda.ie

https://www.garda.ie/en/Crime/Criminal-damage/What-is-criminal-damage-%EF%BB%BF%EF%BB%BF.html

Is graffiti criminal damage?
Uncontrolled graffiti is criminal damage which encourages further criminal acts and has economic and social costs that must be borne by everybody. To check out our information leaflet on graffiti, click here. For further advice on how to control or prevent graffiti, contact your local Crime Prevention Officer or check out An Garda Síochána's Information Leaflet on Property Crime.

So lipstick would also constitute criminal damage.

micar · 23-08-2020 06:20PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

I've never had a problem removing parking ticket pouches, maybe they use different glue where you illegally park.

Anyways

I would think that unless they had checked if the driver had hand sanitizer in his car, the perpetrator was reckless in that they hindered the drivers vision.

Reckless.....ah here.

Great assumption you made there.....let me explain.

I was legally parked. When i put the ticket on the dash board, it flipped up side down when I closed the door.

Granted , I should have checked.

I did appeal and got half my money back.

I was able to explain that as I walked away I walked past two clamper employees who had parked their van at the end of the road. Why would I walk away without paying knowing they were walking towards my car.

Plus I had the ticket.

That good enough for you.

Spook_ie · 23-08-2020 06:34PM

Whether you were illegally parked deliberately or by act of God, they must still be using a different glue if you had so much trouble removing the glue.

Anyway personal anecdotes about your own illegal parking aside, the Garda say different.

TaurenDruid · 23-08-2020 06:45PM

Stark wrote: »

Genius. Sure we can save ourselves a fortune on cycling infrastructure. Just dismount and walk everywhere.

Yes. And we can save a fortune on parking infrastructure. We can just park on cycle lanes!

Or cyclists and motorists could abide by the law and regulations, maybe? Dismount for the 40 seconds it takes to walk across the bridge?

micar · 23-08-2020 06:49PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Whether you were illegally parked deliberately or by act of God, they must still be using a different glue if you had so much trouble removing the glue.

Anyway personal anecdotes about your own illegal parking aside, the Garda say different.

You assumed I was illegally park. I explained the circumstsnce to you that I wasn't.

You again twice said I was illegally parked.

Perhaps you should read my post.

The glue simply doesn't come off. A bit of white spirits and boom gone.

I'd say the AGS would be more interested in where he was parked over the what was written on his window.

Stark · 23-08-2020 06:52PM

You're arguing with someone who has way more experience of illegal parking than you have.

Spook_ie · 23-08-2020 07:29PM

micar wrote: »

You assumed I was illegally park. I explained the circumstsnce to you that I wasn't.

You again twice said I was illegally parked.

Perhaps you should read my post.

The glue simply doesn't come off. A bit of white spirits and boom gone.

I'd say the AGS would be more interested in where he was parked over the what was written on his window.

I assumed nothing, you were illegally parked because you weren't displaying a current ticket ( your description of events ) you managed to argue it down to 50% penalty because ( I assume ) you presented the ticket at a later date/time, but as at the date/time of the offence you were illegally parked. If you weren't then you would have received 100% back surely.

Spook_ie · 23-08-2020 07:38PM

micar wrote: »

I'd say the AGS would be more interested in where he was parked over the what was written on his window.

From the evidence of the photograph there doesn't appear to be any no parking signs or evidence of a cycle track on the ground, perhaps there is out of shot of the camera but there is no evidence of illegal parking in the photograph. Indeed the only evidence in the photograph is of criminal damage to a car by the writing of graffiti on it.

Duckjob · 23-08-2020 07:50PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Also according to Garda.ie

https://www.garda.ie/en/Crime/Criminal-damage/What-is-criminal-damage-%EF%BB%BF%EF%BB%BF.html

So lipstick would also constitute criminal damage.

It's quite astounding how much you have to say about a bit of removable lipstick on a side window and in contrast how little you have to say about somebody deliberately parking their large car in a place that

a) Is partially blocking the cycle lane

b) destroys the sightlines between cyclists using the cycle lane and other drivers exiting that area and thereby massively contributes to the chances of a potentially serious accident happening.

and

c) in doing a) and b) showing a complete lack of respect and regard for the safety of other road users.

But yeah, lipstick, criminal damage etc etc.

Spook_ie · 23-08-2020 07:58PM

Duckjob wrote: »

It's quite astounding how much you have to say about a bit of removable lipstick on a side window and in contrast how little you have to say about somebody deliberately parking their large car in a place that

a) Is partially blocking the cycle lane

b) destroys the sightlines between cyclists using the cycle lane and other drivers exiting that area and thereby massively contributes to the chances of a potentially serious accident happening.

and

c) in doing a) and b) showing a complete lack of respect and regard for the safety of other road users.

But yeah, lipstick, criminal damage etc etc.

But yeah where's the evidence of illegal parking, do you see any? No, I thought so.

Even if there is some no parking signage, perhaps you're advocating that we should all take the law into our own hands?

micar · 23-08-2020 08:02PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

where you illegally park.

Spook_ie wrote: »

I assumed nothing, you said you were illegally parked because you weren't displaying a current ticket, you managed to argue it down to 50% penalty because ( I assume ) you presented the ticket at a later date/time, but as at the date/time of the offence you were illegally parked. If you weren't then you would have received 100% back surely.

Yes you did.

I never said I was illegally parked.

The clampers would not remove the clamp unless I paid the fine. So, I had no choice to pay.

Of course I provided a copy of the ticket.

It i was illegally parked, I would have had no case.

If my ticket was correctly displayed, I would not have been clamped.

My ticket was not correctly displayed, so I was clamped.

My complaint requested a full refund. I got back 50%. I acknowledged my error.

So by getting a 50% refund, according to you I was both illegally and legally parked at the same time.

Spook_ie · 23-08-2020 08:06PM

micar wrote: »

Yes you did.

I never said I was illegally parked.

The clampers would not remove the clamp unless I paid the fine. So, I had no choice to pay.

Of course I provided a copy of the ticket.

It i was illegally parked, I would have had no case.

If my ticket was correctly displayed, I would not have been clamped.

My ticket was not correctly displayed, so I was clamped.

My complaint requested a full refund. I got back 50%. I acknowledged my error.

So by getting a 50% refund, according to you I was both illegally and legally parked at the same time.

If you were "legally" parked you wouldnt have been clamped, you may have thought you were "legally" parked but it's fairly clear that you weren't. If you were legally parked then you would have been able to take the clamping company to court for compensation for the illegal denial of the use of your car.

Duckjob · 23-08-2020 08:16PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

But yeah where's the evidence of illegal parking, do you see any? No, I thought so.

Even if there is some no parking signage, perhaps you're advocating that we should all take the law into our own hands?

I didn't advocate anything, but carry on, don't let that little detail stop you throwing your little insinuations around.

I just found it interesting how your initial response was to wade in full pelt on the criminality of putting lipstick on someone's window, with not a whisper until now regarding the actions of the driver.

Duckjob · 23-08-2020 08:23PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

But yeah where's the evidence of illegal parking, do you see any? No, I thought so.

Even if there is some no parking signage, perhaps you're advocating that we should all take the law into our own hands?

And btw, I don't care if it's technically illegal or not to park there.

It's majorly dickish and dangerous to park where he did, for the reasons I've already detailed in my last post and which I notice you avoided answering.

micar · 23-08-2020 08:26PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

If you were "legally" parked you wouldnt have been clamped, you may have thought you were "legally" parked but it's fairly clear that you weren't. If you were legally parked then you would have been able to take the clamping company to court for compensation for the illegal denial of the use of your car.

Grand so.

According to the clampers, I was illegally parked.

According to me, I was legally parked and was able to prove this.

We met half way.

I was happy with the outcome and didn't take it further.

My one and only time being clamped

Lesson learned.

Spook_ie · 23-08-2020 08:29PM

Duckjob wrote: »

I didn't advocate anything, but carry on, don't let that little detail stop you throwing your little insinuations around.

I just found it interesting how your initial response was to wade in full pelt on the criminality of putting lipstick on someone's window, with not a whisper until now regarding the actions of the driver.

Because from the EVIDENCE provided, there aren't any parking restrictions, the cycle lane isn't marked across the road, there are no yellow lines and no "no parking" signs but sure the cyclist is in the right to deface the car with graffiti.

Even if there were restrictions indicated out of shot, what right does the cyclist think he has to take the law into their own hands?

So you either condone or not the graffiti, if you condone it then you advocate for it and so far I see little condemnation of a cyclist taking the law into their own hands and causing criminal damage to a vehicle.

micar · 23-08-2020 08:30PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

From the evidence of the photograph there doesn't appear to be any no parking signs or evidence of a cycle track on the ground, perhaps there is out of shot of the camera but there is no evidence of illegal parking in the photograph. Indeed the only evidence in the photograph is of criminal damage to a car by the writing of graffiti on it.

The person is parked at the baths in clontarf

He should not have parked there.

The three cones are conveniently placed.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/QWMue8h9cBEuKZhG7

micar · 23-08-2020 08:46PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you either condone or not the graffiti, if you condone it then you advocate for it and so far I see little condemnation of a cyclist taking the law into their own hands and causing criminal damage to a vehicle.

Where is the evidence that it was a cyclist who wrote it.

It could have been anyone.

Spook_ie · 23-08-2020 08:49PM

micar wrote: »

Where is the evidence that it was a cyclist who wrote it.

It could have been anyone.

Touche, so do you condone the person then?

Spook_ie · 23-08-2020 09:00PM

micar wrote: »

The person is parked at the baths in clontarf

He should not have parked there.

The three cones are conveniently placed.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/QWMue8h9cBEuKZhG7

12. Is parking available?
Due to the popularity of the Baths it has become apparent that additional car parking is required. You have been kind enough to bring this to our attention along with the potential hazard at the cycle track outside of our premises. Please be advised that we take your comments very seriously and we have been in touch with Dublin City Council Planning and Roads departments to come up with a solution for this problem.
Dublin City Council has been very supportive, and a number of senior officials have attended on site with a view to resolving these issues. We have our architects and engineers working on preparing drawings for a planning application to upgrade the cycle track and improve the car parking which we hope will be submitted in a number of weeks.
Please bear with us, as like everybody else we have to go through a planning process, and we would welcome your support. We’ll keep you updated over the course of the next number of weeks.

Would seem to indicate that parking is allowed there, and indeed the baths are trying to get additional parking

micar · 23-08-2020 09:07PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Would seem to indicate that parking is allowed there, and indeed the baths are trying to get additional parking

When i said he should not have park there, I meant the positioning of his car........the front has encroached the lane for cyclists heading towards town

How ironic that the person who parked his car is a member of the triathlon club Triology. The person who would also be a cyclist should have known not to position his car there.

Thelonious Monk · 23-08-2020 09:08PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Touche, so do you condone the person then?

I would like to see more of this kind of thing. Pedestrians and cyclists have put up with arrogant selfish car drivers for long enough. Might buy some lippy myself, finally an excuse to.

Duckjob · 23-08-2020 09:11PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Because from the EVIDENCE provided, there aren't any parking restrictions, the cycle lane isn't marked across the road, there are no yellow lines and no "no parking" signs but sure the cyclist is in the right to deface the car with graffiti.

Yeah, apart from the continuous track extending both directions, apart from the bikes and arrows painted on those tracks, and apart from the "CAUTION CYCLISTS" signs along the shared part inbetween,

I mean how on earth could he have been expected to know he was parking halfway across a cycle track ?

micar · 23-08-2020 09:17PM

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Might buy some lippy myself, finally an excuse to.

Me too....I've some space in the saddle bag.

Now.....what brand and colour.

Spook_ie · 23-08-2020 09:22PM

Duckjob wrote: »

Yeah, apart from the continuous track extending both directions, apart from the bikes and arrows painted on those tracks, and apart from the "CAUTION CYCLISTS" signs along the shared part inbetween,

I mean how on earth could he have been expected to know he was parking halfway across a cycle track ?

You're not looking at the road where he's parked, you're looking further down from him and extrapolating back. There are NO cycle lane marking lines there, do you even see the yield signs? therefore legally there isn't a cycle lane.

So do you condone a person causing criminal damage to a car?

AndrewJRenko · 23-08-2020 09:28PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

You're not looking at the road where he's parked, you're looking further down from him and extrapolating back. There are NO cycle lane marking lines there, do you even see the yield signs? therefore legally there isn't a cycle lane.

So do you condone a person causing criminal damage to a car?

Is it a road that he's parked on?

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Comments