Cyclists

[TheOutdoorThreadmill]

Doubtful that blurring out their face will be sufficient if you are still publishing their car registration from which they are easily identified.

What? Perhaps if you have access to Pulse.

 

[jank]

Aw diddums, getting ratty because the PROC isnt an echo chamber like Twitter.


Listen m8 if you had any semblance of cop on you'd have called it a day on your lone ranger routine on the roads of Cork after you ended up with your name and details splashed all over the court reports (50+ complaints lol ).

You're obviously far too gone to realise what a complete lunatic you look like to the casual observer.

I hope you eventually seek the help you so very clearly need.

Very rattled.
Still thinking I am someone else.
Its all you have at this stage.

You created the mental breakdown thread, maybe subconsiously your brain is telling you something?

 

[jank]

News flash here Rox, Criminal cases go beyond GDPR and GDPR does not apply to such incidents.

Dangerous driving is not a crime now?

Were you really a bus driver for all those years or are you the Walter Mitty of PROC, as you don't have a clue. As much brainpower of a nat.

 

[jank]

That just brings me to the Garda Twitter page. They anonymise all posts.

Yeap, as I said one is free to post up videos of people online.

 

[jank]

Doubtful that blurring out their face will be sufficient if you are still publishing their car registration from which they are easily identified.

How?

Please explain.

 

[Moyboy]

It is a Road, a laneway is a pathway for pedestrians.
Not its not a ' single lane ' that terminology is more appropriate with lanes on a dual carriageway or a motorway. Legally you are correct with reference to the 1.5m safe passing distance.
However I believe there is a way in which a car can indeed pass a cyclist safely on the section of road, which by the way I know very well.
If there are no vehicles parked in the parking bays on that road, a cyclist could safely cycle along in the parking pays, close to the kerb and a car can very easily pass that cyclist out, assuming of course that cyclist is not going at 40 kmph and feeling they own the road.

There's one parking bay on the left hand side on that road, which I also know very well, and if you watch the video, there are cars parked in it, so even if he were to move into the space he would quickly have to swerve back out into traffic again to avoid the parked cars, which is obviously dangerous.

It is not safe in this scenario for any cyclist to move to the left - the bay is occupied and the narrow width of the road doesn't afford a safe passing distance.

Only a certain type of individual comes out with with that one, it is possible to exceed 50 there by the way, whilst that may not be legal, it is possible.

So what if it's possible? It's illegal? Are road users supposed to act by what is possible or what is legal? If I'm at a crossroads and the light goes green should I go or sit there forever - after all someone coming the other way could barrel through. Whilst that may not be legal, it is possible

I imagine the motorist saw the cyclist cycling along in the middle of the narrow road, perhaps the driver thought to themselves, what is this guy playing at ? Why is this cyclist in the middle of the road, am I going to be stuck behind this cyclist the whole way along my journey.

On any road, whereby a cyclist is cycling in the centre of the road and cycling at 40 kmh and if there is a 50kmh limit then that is 10 kmh less than what is legally allowed, therefore it is only logical to conclude that the cyclist is indeed holding up traffic.

Even on that stretch of road.

If this is the motorist's thinking then it is entirely illogical. That stretch of road is, at the very most, 500m long. You then come into Douglas village where it merges to become a two-way road where there's ample space to overtake. Doing 40kmph means you'd do 500m in about 45 seconds. Doing 50kmph - the legal limit - means you'd do it in roughly 35 seconds. "Stuck behind the cyclist the whole way along my journey" in this instance, in reality, actually means it's taking the motorist about 10 seconds more to drive this road. Blowing your horn at someone on a bike for the sake of 10 seconds is just dickhead behaviour

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Dangerous driving is not a crime now?

Were you really a bus driver for all those years or are you the Walter Mitty of PROC, as you don't have a clue. As much brainpower of a nat.

'Gnat', the word is 'gnat'.


I'd seriously question the third level institution that certified you.

 

[Meridian]

Dangerous driving is not a crime now?

Were you really a bus driver for all those years or are you the Walter Mitty of PROC, as you don't have a clue. As much brainpower of a nat.

John, where did I suggest please that dangerous driving is not a crime ?

You might please highlight that for me like a good man.

And PS, Hank is correct.

Shame about your level of English and you have the audacity to question other people's education.

 

[SoundMan]

What? Perhaps if you have access to Pulse.

'Gnat', the word is 'gnat'.


I'd seriously question the third level institution that certified you.

Maybe it was an institution that certified him - and I don't mean a CIT type of institution

 

[Crankycorner]

For example, drink 20 pints!

Correct. It’s also not illegal to drive 50 km/hr on a motorway but it’s incredibly unsafe to do it. Pedantic John would do well to remember legal doesn’t mean right.