Thelonious Monk wrote: » 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.
micar wrote: » Me too....I've some space in the saddle bag. Now.....what brand and colour.
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?
Spook_ie wrote: » So at least we have two of you admitting to that they'd likely (maybe you already do ) take the law into their own hands and cause criminal damage to another road users mode of transport. So do you think that pedestrians have the same rights to punish cyclists on footpaths by pushing them over in defence of their right to stand against illegality? Or is it a case of one law for them and another for us? ( as in pedestrians and cyclists )
micar wrote: » What are the yield signs for? Perhaps for the exit/entrance into the baths. No wait, what about the concrete bollards blocking the access point? So, the yield signs you refer have no use as cyclists have nothing to yield against. The access point to the baths is further up the road and here the bollards were removed. The access point acts as an entrance and exit to the baths. Here there is also a yield sign either side of the cycle lane and have an actual use.
micar wrote: » I never said that. You're interpretation of "criminal damage" equates to assult.
Spook_ie wrote: » There are still NO cycle track markings, the cycle track starts and ends some 3 meters from where the car is, there are still NO parking prohibited signage, to all intents and purposes he would seem to be legally parked, unlike you and your over turned ticket
Spook_ie wrote: » Didn't you?
micar wrote: » Since you referenced their website "Free parking is available outside The Baths and we are delighted to announce that we are well into in the process of applying for upgrade works to also include up to 40 new bicycle bays, In the meantime there will be limited parking but if you are parking to please be mindful that a cycle path crosses the entrance to the left and the right, so always check it is clear before entering and leaving." If it applies to the entrance then it applies to the point where the car is parked.
micar wrote: » I did not say that I am going to buy lipstick and write on someones car.
Spook_ie wrote: » But there ISN'T a cycle path there, it ends at the yield sign, Perhaps you might infer there's one there from there being one either side BUT there isn't one LEGALLY there.
Spook_ie wrote: » You inferred it, seems to me you like to infer a lot!
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So if a driver parks on any bend without markings, with the front third of their vehicle sticking out onto a road, for example, will you be arguing that he's not blocking a road because there are no markings.
micar wrote: » So it would be ok for a car to be parked up right to the bollards. Would be interesting to see what would happen there Care to volunteer?
Spook_ie wrote: » No because I might get blocked in by someone parked in behind me
micar wrote: » You like to assume a lot
micar wrote: » Perhaps to teach you a lesson because you were blocking the cycle path. Would it be a criminal offence to block you?
Spook_ie wrote: » No because I might get blocked in by someone parked in behind me, however, having said that you still want to ignore the TOTAL lack of paint that would legitimise the situation either way. And yet you still condone and would like to put things in your saddlebags to support the actions of a person taking the law into their own hands.
micar wrote: » He has a trilogy jacket on......he's a fu(king cyclist. He's a complete idiot.
SeanW wrote: » Sean O'Casey footbridge? I've never used it in peak times and did not have to negotiate with at least 4 two-wheeled lawbreakers.
SeanW wrote: » I hear what you're saying, but I've found it difficult not to generalise about cyclists given how many of them: Are extremists. Tell you that cyclists are a hive mind and that we should generalise them. A good example is below: Conor Faughan may be a person who regularly uses a bicycle, even daily, but he's not really a "cyclist" because he does not have the "correct" politics for a real "cyclist." Given how many cyclists seem to hold similar views to that poster, it is very difficult sometimes not to agree.
SeanW wrote: » Doesn't a Garda require speed monitoring equipment to determine a motorists' speed? How often do Gardai on foot patrol carry that kind of gear around? And how does the Garda on foot patrol catch up to a speeding motorists considering they are on foot and the driver is "speeding" away?
SeanW wrote: » Well this part is simply a lie. This thread was started by a pedestrian, neither myself nor Tauren, and there were a few other pedestrians who also shared their experiences of having to negotiate with two-wheeled lawbreakers, usually followed by your good self jumping down their throat with "but motorists kill people" in one case it took you only six minutes to jump down a pedestrians throat with your deflections. I also posted a Liveline recording where yet more people talked about their experiences sharing footpaths with two-wheeled lawbreakers. So the idea that just me and Taruen have noticed the behaviour of cyclists is just a straight up lie.
SeanW wrote: » You have shown your determination to deflect from the fact that Irish cyclists are totally unregulated and it shows. That does not change the fact that Irish cyclists are totally unregulated, and it shows in their appalling behaviour.
SeanW wrote: » Do I hear the sound of goalposts shifting? Your claim throughout this thread has been very clear. Cracking down on lawbreakers on bikes would detract from the supposedly much needed enforcement for motorists. Any implication of this kind is misleading. Any implication that an appropriate level of enforcement targeting motorists (whatever level that might be) and a modicum of enforcement against two-wheeled lawbreakers are mutually exclusive is false, especially given that enforcement methods for both modes differ. Does the Chewbacca defense count? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14 Just spout a bunch of irrelevant crap to deflect and distract.
Spook_ie wrote: » No because he is supposed to park parallel to the kerb unless signposted otherwise.
Spook_ie wrote: » Look at the picture, there IS NOT a cycle path marked there, the tarmac is unpainted, there are NO signs. Doesn't matter how much you wish it otherwise the pictures show the facts.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So if he parks parallel to the kerb, with the rear 2/3rds of the vehicle parallel to the kerb (like this guy) and the front 1/3 of the vehicle sticking out into the junction, will you be jumping to his defence and saying that there's nothing wrong with that parking?
Spook_ie wrote: » There is NO junction there!
magicbastarder wrote: » just my daily check in to see if this thread has veered towards any constructive comment, and whoah, based on the above, that's a no.
Spook_ie wrote: » Because there is no cycle lane, there would be if there was a spare bit of white paint left over but as it is there ISN'T. I wouldn't expect some one to park here because ( though it could do with some paint ) there IS a marked cycle path across the junction
