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
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Dash cam saves your ass (no Roundabout stuff please :)

1…128129131133134…255

Comments

  • #3902
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    Iwannahurl wrote: »

    Droid is less than a metre from the white line when the lights change, and is in fact approaching on an amber light. It changes to red as he passes. Nobody is crossing, his speed is negligible, and the combined mass of bicycle and rider is a fraction of a car's.

    Meanwhile a car passes by at a much higher speed and is probably at the same point just as the lights change. However, because of its higher speed it clears the lights a lot faster and therefore doesn't "break the red".

    Of course it's a car and therefore less worthy of attention when the main aim of the aggressive pedantry is to have a go at the self-styled "social corrector", because he's a mouthy cyclist.

    I didn't realize it was okay to break a red light if you go slow and nobody is crossing, and all that time I've been stopping like a sucker.


  • #3903
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    At the speed he was going he could have stopped.
    If you look at the few seconds before he cross the white line he's not even looking at the lights.
    Now your just making excuses.


    Excuses for what exactly?

    He looks over his shoulder to check for approaching traffic.

    The approaching traffic (in the clip) consists of a car (Fiat 500?) weighing as much as 900 kg.

    Assuming Droid is 80 kg and his bike plus all the various gear is 20 kg, the passing car weighs nine times as much and is travelling perhaps ten times faster.

    Do the math, as they say in the States.

    Any person with half a brain, a smidgen of common sense and no axe to grind will see that the alleged RLJ offence is so minor as to be of no consequence.

    That won't stop the prejudiced pedants of course.


  • #3904
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,523 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Excuses for what exactly?

    He looks over his shoulder to check for approaching traffic.

    The approaching traffic (in the clip) consists of a car (Fiat 500?) weighing as much as 900 kg.

    Assuming Droid is 80 kg and his bike plus all the various gear is 20 kg, the passing car weighs nine times as much and is travelling perhaps ten times faster.

    Do the math, as they say in the States.

    If Droid weighs 100kg plus and is approaching at 12 miles per hour solve for X when it is ok to break the law because Y. :rolleyes:
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Any person with half a brain, a smidgen of common sense and no axe to grind will see that the alleged RLJ offence is so minor as to be of no consequence.

    That won't stop the prejudiced pedants of course.

    Ah yes, attack people that disagree with you and insult them. Anyone that disagrees with this method or discussion must touch animals in their spare time inappropriately.

    Droid is a pedanadic serial complainer who was caught running a red light.


  • #3905
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    Nino Brown wrote: »
    I didn't realize it was okay to break a red light if you go slow and nobody is crossing, and all that time I've been stopping like a sucker.


    The point is that the light changes as he's passing, with nobody crossing. He approaches on an amber light at the exact same time as a motorist travelling perhaps ten times faster (say 5 km/h versus 50 km/h).

    The motorist doesn't stop, and neither does the cyclist.

    The hypothetical consequences of the cyclist not stopping versus the motorist not stopping are entirely different, yet all the attention is on the cyclist not stopping, for no other reason than to please the pedants and the keyboard warriors poised at their keyboards for the purposes of extreme nit-picking.


  • #3906
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Any person with half a brain, a smidgen of common sense and no axe to grind will see that the alleged RLJ offence is so minor as to be of no consequence.
    .

    The guy seems to have dedicated his life to pulling people up on minor traffic offences, you think he shouldn't be called out on them?


  • Advertisement
  • #3907
    Nino Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The point is that the light changes as he's passing, with nobody crossing. He approaches on an amber light at the exact same time as a motorist travelling perhaps ten times faster (say 5 km/h versus 50 km/h).

    The motorist doesn't stop, and neither does the cyclist.

    The hypothetical consequences of the cyclist not stopping versus the motorist not stopping are entirely different, yet all the attention is on the cyclist not stopping, for no other reason than to please the pedants and the keyboard warriors poised at their keyboards for the purposes of extreme nit-picking.

    The motorist didn't break any laws, they were clear of the junction when the light was red, so why would they get any attention?


  • #3908
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,786 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    Iwannahurl wrote: »

    Droid is less than a metre from the white line when the lights change, and is in fact approaching on an amber light. It changes to red as he passes. Nobody is crossing, his speed is negligible, and the combined mass of bicycle and rider is a fraction of a car's.

    Meanwhile a car passes by at a much higher speed and is probably at the same point just as the lights change. However, because of its higher speed it clears the lights a lot faster and therefore doesn't "break the red".

    Of course it's a car and therefore less worthy of attention when the main aim of the aggressive pedantry is to have a go at the self-styled "social corrector", because he's a mouthy cyclist.
    You are legally required to stop on red and amber (same as for red only). That goes for all vehicles.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-highway-code-light-signals-controlling-traffic
    Nino Brown wrote: »
    The motorist didn't break any laws, they were clear of the junction when the light was red, so why would they get any attention?
    He did, as I mentioned above.


  • #3909
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    I should probably point out that later in the program Droid absolutely lays into another cyclist for breaking a red light. It was amber, he was moving off and if he wants to practise what he preaches he should have stopped (He easily could have done so) Pedantic I know but honestly that entire program enraged me. Psychologically, these are people with severe issues. Yes we all have a right to complain and make our point heard, but there is a limit. Was rooting for the customer care teams the entire time.


  • #3910
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The clip is an obnoxious mixture of selective editing, pedantry and prejudice. ....
    Droid is less than a metre from the white line when the lights change, and is in fact approaching on an amber light. It changes to red as he passes.
    Light goes Amber as you approach, you stop unless it is unsafe to do so, thats the law. Him being on a bicycle is irrelevant.
    Meanwhile a car passes by at a much higher speed and is probably at the same point just as the lights change. However, because of its higher speed it clears the lights a lot faster and therefore doesn't "break the red".
    They both done it and both should have stopped
    Of course it's a car and therefore less worthy of attention when the main aim of the aggressive pedantry is to have a go at the self-styled "social corrector", because he's a mouthy cyclist.
    It wasn't mentioned because he was the focus of conversation
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I'd say he ticks a number of aggression-attracting boxes. In this instance the RLJ accusation is pure opportunism, and is clearly unjustified imo.
    He broke the light, there was no need, safely done or not, he is known to ridicule others for the same crime.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Any person with half a brain, a smidgen of common sense and no axe to grind will see that the alleged RLJ offence is so minor as to be of no consequence.
    I am not prejudiced, but if you hold a light up to everyone elses behaviour, you should expect them to turn the light on you to see are you up to the high standard you expect from others.
    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The point is that the light changes as he's passing, with nobody crossing. He approaches on an amber light at the exact same time as a motorist travelling perhaps ten times faster (say 5 km/h versus 50 km/h).

    The motorist doesn't stop, and neither does the cyclist.

    The hypothetical consequences of the cyclist not stopping versus the motorist not stopping are entirely different, yet all the attention is on the cyclist not stopping, for no other reason than to please the pedants and the keyboard warriors poised at their keyboards for the purposes of extreme nit-picking.
    All for the reason that he was the focus of the previous umpteen posts. If the previous posts were about the FIAT500 driver, maybe it would have been worth mentioning.


  • #3911
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,286 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Excuses for what exactly?
    You're making excuses for the cyclist.
    He looks over his shoulder to check for approaching traffic.
    He's already in the lane, he should be looking at the lights and at the side of the road in case a pedestrain is about to cross.
    The motorist doesn't stop, and neither does the cyclist.
    The motorist can't stop safely on an amber, the cyclist can.


  • Advertisement
  • #3912
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Droid is a pedanadic serial complainer who was caught running a red light.



    I never heard of Droid before now, but it's abundantly clear that there are more than a few pedantic complainers lining up to complain pedantically about an alleged pedantic complainer committing an alleged RLJ offence so minor that it would never even make it onto a police officer's notebook never mind reach a court only to be laughed out of it.

    It seems a dashcam doesn't just save asses, it encourages them.


  • #3913
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,523 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I never heard of Droid before now, but it's abundantly clear that there are more than a few pedantic complainers lining up to complain pedantically about an alleged pedantic complainer committing an alleged RLJ offence so minor that it would never even make it onto a police officer's notebook never mind reach a court only to be laughed out of it.

    It seems a dashcam doesn't just save asses, it encourages them.

    Never heard of him? He was on a program about serial complainers and was seen breaking a red light while castigating other for doing the same.


    Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.


  • #3914
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    The motorist can't stop safely on an amber, the cyclist can.


    Let's see if I'm getting this, er, logic right. The motorist in a 900 kg metal box travelling at 50 km/h can't stop safely so therefore should continue through the amber light, whereas the 90 kg gross weight cyclist should stop at the same light at the same moment because his speed and mass are much lower.

    And this is to achieve what exactly?

    Apart from please the prejudiced pedants, that is.


  • #3915
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,523 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Let's see if I'm getting this, er, logic right. The motorist in a 900 kg metal box travelling at 50 km/h can't stop safely so therefore should continue through the amber light, whereas the 90 kg gross weight cyclist should stop at the same light at the same moment because his speed and mass are much lower.

    And this is to achieve what exactly?

    Apart from please the prejudiced pedants, that is.

    Its the law.


  • #3916
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,286 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Let's see if I'm getting this, er, logic right. The motorist in a 900 kg metal box travelling at 50 km/h can't stop safely so therefore should continue through the amber light, whereas the 90 kg gross weight cyclist should stop at the same light at the same moment because his speed and mass are much lower.

    And this is to achieve what exactly?

    Apart from please the prejudiced pedants, that is.
    There's no need to be a smart ass.

    The cyclist can safely stop on the amber light. The motorist can't.
    It's that simple, and no amount of trying to turn this into a discussion about physics, to suit your ends is going to change that.


  • #3917
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    The cyclist can safely stop on the amber light. The motorist can't.
    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Its the law.


    So?

    Let's say you're the pedantic prosecutor with lots of time on his hands who has decided to take this case all the way to court.

    What are you going to say to the judge that won't make him laugh you out of court, or give you a dressing down for wasting everyone's time?


  • #3918
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    They both could have stopped safely if they wanted too, they didn't, neither tried. I lambasted Droid because that's what he does to others (I have no sound on the video, I presume from the comments that there is someone criticising droid). All in all, do I care, not that much. The same way i would lambast someone who opens their window and gives out to me for cycling on the road and being dangerous (or following traffic law, whatever) while driving at 40kmph and having their eyes off the road.

    As for the driver of the Fiat500, he was too fast approaching lights, he ran a light and yes he deserves a caution, with a bit of luck he will also get a slap on the wrist for his behaviour.

    It's two faced and if you give out to those who break the rules, expect the same in kind.


  • #3919
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,016 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    So?

    Let's say you're the pedantic prosecutor with lots of time on his hands who has decided to take this case all the way to court.

    What are you going to say to the judge that won't make him laugh you out of court, or give you a dressing down for wasting everyone's time?

    If you brought it all the way to court the judge would be annoyed as you would be the defendant and would probably increase the fine for wasting the courts time. This video is from the UK, they cleverly have FPNs for such things if they feel it necessary. Something we sorely need here.


  • #3920
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,523 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    So?

    Let's say you're the pedantic prosecutor with lots of time on his hands who has decided to take this case all the way to court.

    What are you going to say to the judge that won't make him laugh you out of court, or give you a dressing down for wasting everyone's time?

    Why would the judge laugh, a red light was clearly ran, open and shut.


  • #3921
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,786 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Light goes Amber as you approach, you stop unless it is unsafe to do so, thats the law. Him being on a bicycle is irrelevant.

    They both done it and both should have stopped
    Actually as they approached both the red and amber lamps were showing. The UK Highway Code (I posted a link earlier) says you must stop on red and amber, just as you must stop when only a red lamp is showing. It's only when the amber lamp alone is showing that you are allowed through if unsafe to stop.
    • RED means ‘Stop’. Wait behind the stop line on the carriageway.
    • RED AND AMBER also means ‘Stop’. Do not pass through or start until GREEN shows
    • AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident
    Both vehicles (car and bicycle) should have stopped when the red and amber were lit together, there was no excuse for either vehicle and both committed an offence.


  • Advertisement
  • #3922
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    CramCycle wrote: »
    They both could have stopped safely if they wanted too, they didn't, neither tried. I lambasted Droid because that's what he does to others (I have no sound on the video, I presume from the comments that there is someone criticising droid). All in all, do I care, not that much. The same way i would lambast someone who opens their window and gives out to me for cycling on the road and being dangerous (or following traffic law, whatever) while driving at 40kmph and havinwg their eyes off the road.

    As for the driver of the Fiat500, he was too fast approaching lights, he ran a light and yes he deserves a caution, with wa bit of luck he will also get a slap on the wrist for his behaviour.

    It's two faced and if you give out to those who break the rules, expect the same in kind.

    Forget it, you cannot argue with someone who has an anti car agenda that's set in stone, would defend a cyclist even if he beat a grandmother to death on front of 100 witnesses and basically only frequents threads where he can lambast car drivers.
    I have never seen the gentleman that wishes to hurl in any thread that discusses anything to do with being passionate about cars, we don't know what he drives or if he even cares about cars.
    From my point of view he is a troll whose only passion for cars is hatred and who comes to this forum purrely to stir sh*t up and that is evident by the ridiculous way he will keep arguing, no matter how far he painted himself into a corner.


  • #3923
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    slimjimmc wrote: »
    Both vehicles (car and bicycle) should have stopped when the red and amber were lit together, there was no excuse for either vehicle and both committed an offence.


    That may or may not be true, or may or may not stand up in court (in the unlikely event that either cyclist or motorist should find themselves before a judge for their alleged crime).

    The point is that they both did pretty much the same thing in relation to amber/red lights, but the Droid/cyclist bashers ignored -- or possibly didn't even see -- the motorist's behaviour. The reason for that omission is obvious: pure prejudice.

    A second point is that the 900 kg mechanically-propelled vehicle travelling at 50 km/h poses an actual and potential danger far greater than anything the Droid geezer could ever manage on his gadget-laden pushbike. Therefore the alleged RLJ offence, even if true, is not equivalent for both cyclist and motorist. Anyone claiming that they are equivalent -- morally, legally or physically -- is quite frankly clueless, about the law and a bunch of other real-world stuff.


  • #3924
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    Forget it, you cannot argue with someone who has an anti car agenda that's set in stone, would defend a cyclist even if he beat a grandmother to death on front of 100 witnesses and basically only frequents threads where he can lambast car drivers.
    I have never seen the gentleman that wishes to hurl in any thread that discusses anything to do with being passionate about cars, we don't know what he drives or if he even cares about cars.
    From my point of view he is a troll whose only passion for cars is hatred and who comes to this forum purrely to stir sh*t up and that is evident by the ridiculous way he will keep arguing, no matter how far he painted himself into a corner.


    There's no paint and no corner.

    The "anti-car agenda" line is the same tired old guff that misses the point entirely.

    CramCycle wrote: »
    As for the driver of the Fiat500, he was too fast approaching lights, he ran a light and yes he deserves a caution, with a bit of luck he will also get a slap on the wrist for his behaviour.

    It's two faced and if you give out to those who break the rules, expect the same in kind.

    I'm a motorist and a cyclist. I stop for red lights when travelling by either mode. The fact remains that if I was to break a red light on my bike in the same way that I see motorists breaking red lights almost every day (including while school-children are trying to cross the road on the Green Man) I would be posing far less of a risk and therefore less culpable legally or morally.

    It's illegal for motorists and cyclists to break red lights, which is why I respect red lights whether driving or cycling. But the offence is not equivalent, and the potential consequences are not equally serious.


  • #3925
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,523 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The point is that they both did pretty much the same thing in relation to amber/red lights, but the Droid/cyclist bashers ignored -- or possibly didn't even see -- the motorist's behaviour. The reason for that omission is obvious: pure prejudice.

    Bollocks, the motorist was not the subject of a documentary where he complains (amongst other things) about people breaking red lights and then does so himself.


  • #3926
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,570 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Jeez, people were pointing out the funny situation where somebody who gets hysterical about others commuting minor offences commits a minor offence themselves, the fact that they were on a bike is irrelevant. If the car driver had been known for giving out about minor offences themselves the focus would be on them.


  • #3927
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    Bollocks, the motorist was not the subject of a documentary where he complains (amongst other things) about people breaking red lights and then does so himself.


    The Droid geezer was the subject of a short clip from that documentary, edited out of context in order to make a spurious allegation in a lame attempt to demonstrate hypocrisy.

    TheChizler wrote: »
    Jeez, people were pointing out the funny situation where somebody who gets hysterical about others commuting minor offences commits a minor offence themselves, the fact that they were on a bike is irrelevant. If the car driver had been known for giving out about minor offences themselves the focus would be on them.

    Again you appear to be claiming that (a) all the offences are minor and (b) the cyclist's alleged minor offence is equivalent.

    AFAIK I haven't seen any of Droid's (1600?!) YouTube videos, but the few minutes I did see of the documentary appear to show more serious situations such as dangerous overtaking.

    Again it ought to be obvious to any impartial observer that a large motorised vehicle can cause much more damage in equivalent circumstances and hence is much more dangerous. If a vehicle was to run over your leg or your child's buggy when turning a corner, say, would you prefer it to be a bus or a bicycle? Or would you treat each case with equal seriousness?


  • #3928
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    The Droid geezer was the subject of a short clip from that documentary, edited out of context in order to make a spurious allegation in a lame attempt to demonstrate hypocrisy.

    I think it very nicely highlighted what a complete and utter headcase Droid is.
    The man is borderline psychopath. He needs to see a doctor and he needs to get himself on medication.
    He goes out looking for a fight and one day he will either get it, or he will play chicken with a bus and end up a 20 foot red smear on the road.


  • #3929
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »
    I think it very nicely highlighted what a complete and utter headcase Droid is.
    The man is borderline psychopath. He needs to see a doctor and he needs to get himself on medication.
    He goes out looking for a fight and one day he will either get it, or he will play chicken with a bus and end up a 20 foot red smear on the road.


    I think the clip very nicely highlighted some people's desperate need to find any excuse, no matter how trivial, to discredit him.

    Incidentally, I know nothing about him other than what was revealed in the few minutes I saw of the documentary. For all I know he could be more than just an eccentric "social corrector".

    If he really is a "borderline psychopath" then a lame accusation of possible red light jumping is a really pathetic at discrediting him, given all the material that Droid has posted on YouTube.

    Why a bus though? Apparently bikes and buses are equally lethal...


  • #3930
    josip
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,798 ✭✭✭✭josip


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    ...
    I'm a motorist and a cyclist. ...

    Would you say that you post equally objectively in the motors and cycling forums/fora?
    What is the attraction of the various forms of 'pedant' to you?


  • Advertisement
  • #3931
    ironclaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭ironclaw


    @Iwannahurl, I think you should watch the entire documentary. While Droid has some valid points, he does have issues. Serious issues. Thats beyond question. There was one incident where he lays into a bus driver for coming close to him, but the bus in question was overtaking a cyclist in his own bus lane with Droid to his left in the middle of the road.

    The lad wanders around with red cards and a ruler, with 7 cameras on the bike. The lad has issues. Same applied to the obviously unhinged gent who complained about the rising bus fares. The simple explanation being inflation, but that didn't sit with him.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement