Spook_ie wrote: » Would seem to indicate that parking is allowed there, and indeed the baths are trying to get additional parking
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.
micar wrote: » Where is the evidence that it was a cyclist who wrote it. It could have been anyone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Spook_ie wrote: » Also according to Garda.iehttps://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.
micar wrote: » I'd say the AGS would be more interested in where he was parked over the what was written on his window.
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.
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.
Stark wrote: » Genius. Sure we can save ourselves a fortune on cycling infrastructure. Just dismount and walk everywhere.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Spook_ie wrote: » He's also the victim of criminal damage.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » So sorry for your troubles
Spook_ie wrote: » 10kg Vs 100kg, 5kph Vs 15kph, ignorance Vs politeness
Thelonious Monk wrote: » I see it on that bridge yes. I mean i can still wheel my bike into you if I'm walking with it so what difference does it make?
TaurenDruid wrote: » And yet, even though you don't see it, it's happening.
