Cyclists mega-thread (WARNING: Before posting you must read post #1)

CramCycle · 26-05-2014 4:41pm

wrt40 wrote: »

The discussion is about cyclists. Just because there are bad drivers doesn't give cyclists the right to be arse holes on the road.

Agreed

I am one of those plain clothes cyclists and I get by just fine by being courteous to all other people: cyclists, motorists, pedestrians, animals etc

As do most of us

Just try it out. Eveyone is a winner, everyone will be happy, everyone will have a good day and nothing bad will ever come of it.

Thats pretty much what everyone has been saying

The northern Irish ad has it spot on, you know the one where the driver and the cyclist have a "no please, you go first...no I insist you go first" moment, the cyclist gives the driver the thumbs up and he responds with a warm smile and a nod.

Well thats just silly, whoever was on the main road should not have stopped but a lovely sentiment.

CramCycle · 26-05-2014 4:45pm

Tenzor07 wrote: »

We should all do what Russell Brand did when he came across an incident between a cyclist and a van driver: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2625073/Russell-Brand-prevents-road-rage-HUG-cyclist-clipped-passing-van.html

I told you it would work.

Pinch Flat · 26-05-2014 4:59pm

The same issues arise time and time again when motorists and cyclists debate who and how the roads should be used. We live in car centric society for a variety of reasons and cycling is in the increasing minority as a manner of transport. People who are wedded to the car and use it for very short distances cannot see beyond their traffic-jammed dash board when it comes to debating this sensibly.

The red lights argument is a complete red herring – red light (and general traffic law) adherence by virtually all segments of the road using community are lax at best. It is ridiculous to single out cyclists – yes, they do break red lights, but so do cars, motor bikes, taxis and just about every other class of road user. And yes cyclists should be punished (although there is a school of thought to allow cars and bikes certain flexibility to break red lights which is used successfully in other countries, but this rarely gets explored in these debates for some reason).

Next, we have motorists complain that cyclists are not insured – about 20,000 are according to Cycling Ireland. It costs €20 per annum for a leisure cyclists – a small amount if you ask me. I myself am insured and have no issue with cyclists being insured – whether it is compulsory or not is a moot point. Motorists have the ability to inflict more carnage, so this is reflected in the high amount of material and personal damage likely to come from a motoring accident. Cyclists on the other hand are more likely to be injured either by themselves or another road user.

Motorists complain that cyclists don’t pay for ’their’ roads. Another circular argument which shows complete ignorance as to how the roads are funded and paid for. No matter how much you point this out to motorists it comes up again and again – motorists paying for ‘their’ cycling lanes, them not paying to use ‘our’ roads etc, etc. Most cyclists pay PAYE tax, USC, VAT, motor tax (yes, a good proportion drive which comes as a surprise to the budding motorist) as well as VAT on their bikes, accessories and safety equipment. But this is not enough. We must pay more! We should be punished for the huge wear and tear we inflict on our road network.

So, in the balance of fairness, I’ve being given this some consideration. After all, it’s complete unfair that I should use the roads bought and paid for the great Irish motoring public free of charge (mind you, there are rake of other roads users, including all state vehicles, road sweepers, diplomats that pay diddly squat in ‘road tax’ – for some reason they don’t come up in these arguments).

But, how do I pay as a cyclist? Since 2008 taxing cars is based on Co2 emissions. As a cyclist, should the amount of Co2 be worked out that I exhale and applied to the charge? How do I go about working this out? Is it likely to be long the lines of a modest family car (I myself drive a 1.6 litre ford focus which, according to the company’s website produces 164 grams of Co2 per Kilometre). How much do I produce as a cyclist? Do I even have an engine? Probably far less, in fact in the low percent less.

How about I pay based on the weight of my bike? It’s around 10kg. An average family car weights about 1500kg. So how about I pay the .67% per weight of the €200 it costs to tax my focus per annum? Sounds fair. Works out about €1.33 annually. Anyone any idea where I can send my cheque?

Tenzor07 · 26-05-2014 5:05pm

Pinch Flat wrote: »

But, how do I pay as a cyclist? Since 2008 cars are based on emissions. As a cyclist, should the amount of Co2 be worked out that I exhale and applied to the charge? How do I go about working this out? Is it likely to be long the lines of a modest family car (I myself drive a 1.6 litre ford focus which, according to the company’s website produces 164 grams of Co2 per Kilometre). How much do I produce as a cyclist? Probably far less, in fact in the low percent less.

How about I pay based on the weight of my bike? It’s around 10kg. An average family car weights about 1500kg. So how about I pay the .67% per weight of the €200 it costs to tax my focus per annum? Sounds fair. Works out about €1.33 annually. Anyone any idea where I can send my cheque?

I paid more in VAT for one of my bikes than someone pays for a small new Co2 class of tax for the year!

Which is why the Irish and also UK governments wish they could go back to taxing by engine size...

Also, don't forget how are you gonna tax the under 17's?
What if a 3yr old is on a balance bike, with no pedals? Less tax, or maybe tax is payable by the parent a.k.a "The Engine" who just happens to be pushing little Jonny or Mary along?

One point which usually comes up is the good old "License Plates on bikes" issue.. surprised we have not seen that yet!

Zebra3 · 26-05-2014 5:31pm

paddyland wrote: »

The same cyclists who pace along at 15-20kph in a long line on a country road, will then storm through a narrow village, where there are pedestrians, parked cars, and all kinds of distraction about.

That just simply doesn't happen. :rolleyes:

Stop making things up.

Maximus Alexander · 26-05-2014 5:32pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

That just simply doesn't happen. :rolleyes:

Stop making things up.

Indeed, it doesn't even make sense. What possible motivation would a cyclist have for doing that?

OldMrBrennan83 · 26-05-2014 5:50pm

This post has been deleted.

the groutch · 26-05-2014 6:05pm

Some cyclists are pricks, some are sound.
Some motorcyclists are pricks, some are sound.
Some car drivers are pricks, some are sound.
Some van/lorry/truck drives are pricks, some are sound.
Some pedestrian are pricks, some are sound.

/thread

No Pants · 26-05-2014 6:07pm

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

:rolleyes:

Danjamin1 · 26-05-2014 6:18pm

wrt40 wrote: »

I'll see what I can pull out of my ass, it would suit the discussion.

It certainly would since that's where the rest of your argument is coming from

Danjamin1 · 26-05-2014 6:22pm

wrt40 wrote: »

No, again, not what I said. I'll hand my licence over to the next lycra-cladded-Nazi-on-a-bike I see. Happy? Lets see how much further we can drag the discussion down. It's still not going to change the argument and you still won't have disproven any of the accusations made against cyclists. In fact, if anything, I think its point proven on our part.

Baseless "facts" and invented statistics don't win arguments

furiousox · 26-05-2014 6:24pm

the groutch wrote: »

Some cyclists are pricks, some are sound.
Some motorcyclists are pricks, some are sound.
Some car drivers are pricks, some are sound.
Some van/lorry/truck drives are pricks, some are sound.
Some pedestrian are pricks, some are sound.
/thread

We'll have none of that talk around here!

desertcircus · 26-05-2014 6:30pm

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Would that there was a slow handclap emoticon. Let's see: kinetic energy is calculated by squaring velocity, multiplying by mass, and dividing by two. So an M5 going at 150kph has a kinetic energy of about 3.5m joules, while a Tour-class cyclist weighs about 75 kilos including bike and can sustain about 40kph without too much trouble, and so has a kinetic energy of a little under ten thousand joules. In other words, a racing car at race pace will impact with about three hundred and fifty times as much force as a Tour de France cyclist in the event of a crash.

Of course, an M5 is almost two metres wide, while the handlebars on a road bike are less than half a metre; the stopping distance for an M5 doing 150mph is a great deal higher than for a cyclist doing forty; and a cyclist can maneouver out of the way in emergencies in a manner that a two-ton car simply can't. So if we assign a 4:1 ratio to the width, a 2:1 ratio for stopping distance and a 2:1 ratio for avoidance at close range (incredibly crude, I know, but it should do the job), and plug that data into the energy figures we have, we can see that a randomly selected race car driving in your area will, on average, cause five thousand six hundred times as much damage as a randomly selected race cyclist. Which might go some way to explaining why motor racing is meant to be done entirely on closed tracks.

Milly33 · 26-05-2014 6:33pm

Think cyclist should have to do some course before being aloud cycle on the main roads anywho. Some are good be jaysus more are worse. Nearly knocked some chap off his bike going around a roudie bout as he cycled up the side of me on a very tight turn off he should have positioned himself in front of the car not at the side, Then you have the chaps the pros who speed around like theres no tomorrow don't even use bells to let you know they are coming up behind you when walking.. I have no problem with them once they too like drivers take caution and are sensible

Danjamin1 · 26-05-2014 6:42pm

Patww79 wrote: »

An the vast majority of cyclists.

I have to agree with the poster who compared it with the security over the racing that was on recently.
If I own a sports car and I want to drive it in a hazardous manner then I have to bring the thing to a track, out of harms way, to do so. Cyclists need to be forced to do the same. People only have so many hours in the day to sit behind this shower.

I've never heard a cyclist suggest banning cars from the road, it's a one way argument.

Races should be correctly organised but to suggest anyone looking to race should have to go to a track is ridiculous. Also they do hold races on roads as well. Plenty of rally events.

CalRobert · 26-05-2014 6:49pm

Like cars, OP? Move to Los Angeles. It's amazing; murdering bicyclists is pretty much legal and with so many miles of pavement traffic is never a problem. Nice, clean air, too!

mrcheez · 26-05-2014 6:55pm

Regarding the cycling two (or more) abreast, I'm a cyclist and even I find this rather irritating when cycling behind a slow group or driving behind them and being forced to move out into oncoming traffic to overtake. Bike lanes in Dublin are generally one-bike-wide for a reason and it's simple courtesy to keep in single file to allow traffic (and faster cyclists) to pass without being put in harms way.

I've never understood this and even when cycling with my mate on the cycle lane along the Clontarf Road (well away from car users) we always stay in single file out of consideration to oncoming cyclists or those behind.

Do you see two moped vehicles position side by side while on a road? No, they keep as far left as possible and in single file for safety and courtesy.

monument · 26-05-2014 6:55pm

Reminder to all: The commuting and transport charter applies -- it is stricter than many forums.

And remember, this is a thread on the Commuting and Transport board, so talk about how transport modes compare is relevant and attempts to state otherwise and/or tell people what they can't or can talk about will be viewed as back seat modding.

This thread will be different than normal thread and arguments should not be repeated unless you have something new to add -- a FAQ type first post will deal with both sides of the outline of things like "road tax" etc.

paddyland wrote: »

Did it occur to you that maybe I wasn't drunk, that maybe I was deliberately trying to rouse the more maniacal among our cycling friends? They certainly rose to the bait. No harm to get them spilling their guts on a public forum, to see just what kind of attitude exists out there among the militant cyclists. I have never seen such victimhood and defensiveness on any other forum, on any topic under the sun. You want to relax a bit lads, the whole world isn't out to GET you all.

No more trolling.

Note: I'm acting on this because it was reported, I have not yet read the thread and there may be other infractions to give.

Mycroft H · 26-05-2014 7:07pm

mrcheez wrote: »

Regarding the cycling two (or more) abreast, I'm a cyclist and even I find this rather irritating when cycling behind a slow group or driving behind them and being forced to move out into oncoming traffic to overtake. Bike lanes in Dublin are generally one-bike-wide for a reason and it's simple courtesy to keep in single file to allow traffic (and faster cyclists) to pass without being put in harms way.

I've never understood this and even when cycling with my mate on the cycle lane along the Clontarf Road (well away from car users) we always stay in single file out of consideration to oncoming cyclists or those behind.

Do you see two moped vehicles position side by side while on a road? No, they keep as far left as possible and in single file for safety and courtesy.

Ahh I'm glad you got the obligatory 'I'm a cyclist too' bit in.

Nothing wrong with bring considerate; its all good and it keeps everyone happy. But really? Who is forcing you to overtake into oncoming traffic? Who has their foot on the accelerator? Sounds a bit daft if you think your being forced out?

Secondly the very reason that most people tend to keep out from the kerb/verge is because it's safer; you can discorouge dodgy overtake manoeuvres on narrow blind bends for example. Your always more visible at crowded junctions and not stuck in the verge where ones eye can miss you. Lastly and there are plenty more reasons; you avoid all the crap and rubbish that gets thrown into the verge; gravel, stones, bottles, cans etc. I could go on and on here. Its defensive and safe cycling.

Godeatsboogers · 26-05-2014 7:09pm

Those arent cyclists traits those are human traits, your problem is with humans, not cyclists

Spook_ie · 26-05-2014 7:26pm

Danjamin1 wrote: »

I've never heard a cyclist suggest banning cars from the road, it's a one way argument.

Races should be correctly organised but to suggest anyone looking to race should have to go to a track is ridiculous. Also they do hold races on roads as well. Plenty of rally events.

Not on open roads they don't, the only section of rallys is the sections between Special Stages and they are subject to strict timings that penalise competitors for exceeding a certain average speed on public roads

Danjamin1 · 26-05-2014 7:36pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not on open roads they don't, the only section of rallys is the sections between Special Stages and they are subject to strict timings that penalise competitors for exceeding a certain average speed on public roads

Fair point

Spook_ie · 26-05-2014 7:42pm

Mycroft H wrote: »

Ahh I'm glad you got the obligatory 'I'm a cyclist too' bit in.

Nothing wrong with bring considerate; its all good and it keeps everyone happy. But really? Who is forcing you to overtake into oncoming traffic? Who has their foot on the accelerator? Sounds a bit daft if you think your being forced out?

Secondly the very reason that most people tend to keep out from the kerb/verge is because it's safer; you can discorouge dodgy overtake manoeuvres on narrow blind bends for example. Your always more visible at crowded junctions and not stuck in the verge where ones eye can miss you. Lastly and there are plenty more reasons; you avoid all the crap and rubbish that gets thrown into the verge; gravel, stones, bottles, cans etc. I could go on and on here. Its defensive and safe cycling.

You missed out on Gel Bar wrappers, Banana skins etc.

OldMrBrennan83 · 26-05-2014 7:53pm

This post has been deleted.

CramCycle · 26-05-2014 7:59pm

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I suppose that's the better question, anyone have any stats on accidents caused by cyclists versus other road vehicles, what percentage are minor, what % are lethal etc. I obey the law while on my bike, I find it is far safer compared to not (IMO) but what is the impact of, according to some, all cyclists acting with complete disregard.

Spook_ie · 26-05-2014 8:04pm

CramCycle wrote: »

I suppose that's the better question, anyone have any stats on accidents caused by cyclists versus other road vehicles, what percentage are minor, what % are lethal etc. I obey the law while on my bike, I find it is far safer compared to not (IMO) but what is the impact of, according to some, all cyclists acting with complete disregard.

Out of accidents I've personally had in the last 19 years 100% caused by cyclists, damage to my car some €2000, damage to City Imp Unknown, damage to cyclist Nil because he didn't even stop

CramCycle · 26-05-2014 8:21pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Out of accidents I've personally had in the last 19 years 100% caused by cyclists, damage to my car some €2000, damage to City Imp Unknown, damage to cyclist Nil because he didn't even stop

How many have you had?

Spook_ie · 26-05-2014 8:27pm

CramCycle wrote: »

How many have you had?

Just the one

Thargor · 26-05-2014 8:29pm

So there was a cyclist in the vicinity when you crashed your car? Case Closed!

Tenzor07 · 26-05-2014 8:32pm

A crow got caught in the air scoop on the car and caused the engine to overheat and seize, Ban all Crows! :pac:

mrcheez · 26-05-2014 8:43pm

Mycroft H wrote: »

Ahh I'm glad you got the obligatory 'I'm a cyclist too' bit in.

Nothing wrong with bring considerate; its all good and it keeps everyone happy. But really? Who is forcing you to overtake into oncoming traffic? Who has their foot on the accelerator? Sounds a bit daft if you think your being forced out?

Secondly the very reason that most people tend to keep out from the kerb/verge is because it's safer; you can discorouge dodgy overtake manoeuvres on narrow blind bends for example. Your always more visible at crowded junctions and not stuck in the verge where ones eye can miss you. Lastly and there are plenty more reasons; you avoid all the crap and rubbish that gets thrown into the verge; gravel, stones, bottles, cans etc. I could go on and on here. Its defensive and safe cycling.

Bizarre you completely missed the point of my post. I wasn't saying anything about defensive cycling, or keeping off the kerb, of course you keep off the edge.
My reference was to cyclists going 2 or 3 abreast on roads designed to accomodate only one cyclist-width.

Spook_ie · 26-05-2014 8:44pm

Tenzor07 wrote: »

A crow got caught in the air scoop on the car and caused the engine to overheat and seize, Ban all Crows! :pac:

A typical non topical reply, was the crow on a cycle, no, didn't think so

endacl · 26-05-2014 9:35pm

mrcheez wrote: »

Bizarre you completely missed the point of my post. I wasn't saying anything about defensive cycling, or keeping off the kerb, of course you keep off the edge.
My reference was to cyclists going 2 or 3 abreast on roads designed to accomodate only one cyclist-width.

How would a car fit down a road designed to accommodate only one cyclist-width?!?

patrickbrophy18 · 26-05-2014 9:38pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

This is safer than single file as cars are less likely to just pass by unthinkingly.

Unthinkingly. I call it being more decisive (as long as there is the requisite 1.5 meters of clearance between the motorist and the cyclist and there is no oncoming traffic).

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

You need to leave at least 1.5m when overtaking so should pretty much be giving a single cyclist the same space as two wide.

When it is two abreast, the motorist ends up completely on the other side of the road. How is this safe?

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

You weren't stuck behind them, you were in traffic

When cycling two abreast, anyone behind you who wishes to pass out are essentially stuck and needlessly so. This holds particularly true when there are cars coming the other way.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Because it's not as safe

Not safe for what exactly?

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how do you decide its perfectly adequate?

To me, there isn't anything wrong with it in terms of the condition of it.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

For a start it's not even on road which means lack of priority at junctions, it may not even follow the road after a point and just meters up the road from your link there is a bus stop right in the middle of it.

The problem with cycling two abreast on that stretch of road is that motorists wishing to overtake end up on the other side of the road in the process. Also, if you are going straight ahead, it isn't unreasonable to expect cyclists to take to the cycle lane. The fact that a bus stop is in the way is down to bad road design as the cycle lane should go around the bus stop. As such, I can understand why a cyclist would take to the road.

Like it or not, segregation is often the better option. That way, bicycles, cars and pedestrians are not in each others way. In other words, cyclists would have their own space, cars would have theirs and so on. Mixing them all in tighter spaces or having shared use car and bicycle roads is just daft. They are largely different modes of transport and shouldn't be mixed.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Or you could should those cyclists a bit of consideration. they are just another road user after all.

To be fair to the OP, it would be quite hard to show consideration to a road user (or two for that matter) who are knowingly holding you up. Consideration goes both ways, not just one.

Should a cyclist show consideration to a motorist who is holding them up?

My answer: Absolutely not!

endacl · 26-05-2014 9:43pm

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

When it is two abreast, the motorist ends up completely on the other side of the road. How is this safe?

Safer surely, than overtaking a car that can match your speed? You'd still be 'completely on the other side of the road'?

Overtaking a pair of cyclists doing 20-30kmph is a safer and easier than overtaking a car doing 60.

No Pants · 26-05-2014 9:53pm

mrcheez wrote: »

My reference was to cyclists going 2 or 3 abreast on roads designed to accomodate only one cyclist-width.

Where is this road that's only wide enough for one cyclist to use? The average footpath could probably fit two.

RobbieTheRobber · 26-05-2014 9:55pm

CramCycle wrote: »

I suppose that's the better question, anyone have any stats on accidents caused by cyclists versus other road vehicles, what percentage are minor, what % are lethal etc. I obey the law while on my bike, I find it is far safer compared to not (IMO) but what is the impact of, according to some, all cyclists acting with complete disregard.

I had a search and the only stats specifically related to cyclist accidents are here
http://www.traceysolicitors.ie/blog/cyclists-in-dublin-facts-figures-on-accidents/
and here
http://www.herald.ie/lifestyle/the-terrifying-road-toll-on-cyclists-28005426.html
and they both reference the same dublin city council report( which i couldnt find in my cursory search).

Crashes where the fault is more likely to be attributable to the cyclist accounted for a much smaller proportion of incidents. In just over 4 per cent a cyclist hit a pedestrian, while in fewer than 3 per cent of collisions a cyclist turned right into on-coming traffic.
The more serious a crash, the more likely it was to involve a vehicle turning left, according to the report.

Tenzor07 · 26-05-2014 10:06pm

Crashes where the fault is more likely to be attributable to the cyclist accounted for a much smaller proportion of incidents. In just over 4 per cent a cyclist hit a pedestrian, while in fewer than 3 per cent of collisions a cyclist turned right into on-coming traffic.

If you hit a pedestrian while cycling at city speeds, i.e. quite low, chances are you will come off worse than the pedestrian.. who can just walk off or else boot you while you're sprawled on the ground! :rolleyes:

Hit a pedestrian whilst driving at or above the city centre 30kph speed and they will end up in hospital for a week!

desertcircus · 26-05-2014 10:20pm

That's an aspect that's virtually never considered by people who are convinced cyclists are reckless lunatics: if I do something ill-advised when thrashing along at 35kph (I'm not a very fast cyclist), then I'm going to end up hitting either a car (enormous heaps of pain) or the road surface (sliding on tarmac at over thirty kilometres an hour wearing a single layer of skintight lycra). If cyclists were genuinely taking big risks, we'd be dying on a daily basis - we have almost nothing protecting us, and so our decision-making tends to be a lot more aware of risk than a lot of drivers would assume. Being genuinely reckless on a bike means you're quite likely to be hospitalised in days.

Spook_ie · 26-05-2014 10:28pm

Tenzor07 wrote: »

If you hit a pedestrian while cycling at city speeds, i.e. quite low, chances are you will come off worse than the pedestrian.. who can just walk off or else boot you while you're sprawled on the ground! :rolleyes:

Hit a pedestrian whilst driving at or above the city centre 30kph speed and they will end up in hospital for a week!

But therein lies the problem, many cyclists have no idea how fast or slow they are going, just that they are faster than such'n'such a road user or slower than such'n'such a road user. Your idea of city speeds being low is probably different from a pedestrians idea or even mine

Jawgap · 26-05-2014 10:31pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

A typical non topical reply, was the crow on a cycle, no, didn't think so

Don't be so sure.......

CramCycle · 26-05-2014 10:31pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just the one

Fair enough, I have had a taxi run a red and drive off leaving me on the ground, I have been left hooked me on a no left turn junction, I lost consciousness and another lady left hooked me in traffic because she was in a rush to her sister at the theatre. Total cost to me, ongoing.

I make mistakes but none that have harmed anyone, and all of these accidents were serious for me but I don't blame all women or taxis because to do so would be ridiculous. I would happily hand over 2000 to make the permanent pain in my neck to go away. You had one accident, wasn't fair but the grudge you hold against all cyclist is in no way deserved. Sorry for the bad luck but let the hate go.

We're not all the same, you survived, other than mental anguish, nothing permanent, for your own sake, let it go.

Spook_ie · 26-05-2014 10:31pm

desertcircus wrote: »

That's an aspect that's virtually never considered by people who are convinced cyclists are reckless lunatics: if I do something ill-advised when thrashing along at 35kph (I'm not a very fast cyclist), then I'm going to end up hitting either a car (enormous heaps of pain) or the road surface (sliding on tarmac at over thirty kilometres an hour wearing a single layer of skintight lycra). If cyclists were genuinely taking big risks, we'd be dying on a daily basis - we have almost nothing protecting us, and so our decision-making tends to be a lot more aware of risk than a lot of drivers would assume. Being genuinely reckless on a bike means you're quite likely to be hospitalised in days.

Someone being reckless on a cycle doesn't ultimately transfer into pain, injury or death for that person but often for someone entirley innocent getting caught up in the results of someone's reckless cycling, it does

RobbieTheRobber · 26-05-2014 10:37pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Someone being reckless on a cycle doesn't ultimately transfer into pain, injury or death for that person but often for someone entirley innocent getting caught up in the results of someone's reckless cycling, it does

What?

Are you saying that cyclists cause other road users to injure other road users?

Tenzor07 · 26-05-2014 10:37pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

But therein lies the problem, many cyclists have no idea how fast or slow they are going, just that they are faster than such'n'such a road user or slower than such'n'such a road user. Your idea of city speeds being low is probably different from a pedestrians idea or even mine

Huh? "slower than such'n'such faster than such'n'such"

I know precisely how fast/slow I go on a bicycle... it's not like measuring the speed of light here, it's pretty simple!

Spook_ie · 26-05-2014 10:37pm

CramCycle wrote: »

Fair enough, I have had a taxi run a red and drive off leaving me on the ground, I have been left hooked me on a no left turn junction, I lost consciousness and another lady left hooked me in traffic because she was in a rush to her sister at the theatre. Total cost to me, ongoing.

I make mistakes but none that have harmed anyone, and all of these accidents were serious for me but I don't blame all women or taxis because to do so would be ridiculous. I would happily hand over 2000 to make the permanent pain in my neck to go away. You had one accident, wasn't fair but the grudge you hold against all cyclist is in no way deserved. Sorry for the bad luck but let the hate go.

We're not all the same, you survived, other than mental anguish, nothing permanent, for your own sake, let it go.

I see no reason to let it go, it serves as a reminder that no matter how good a driver I am there's always the chance that some pillock will endanger himself and me by failing to follow simple traffic law.

Spook_ie · 26-05-2014 10:40pm

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Huh? "slower than such'n'such faster than such'n'such"

I know precisely how fast/slow I go on a bicycle... it's not like measuring the speed of light here, it's pretty simple!

I'd trawl through the cycling thread about imposing cyclist speed limits ( if I wasn't banned ) and see what input you made to those threads

Tenzor07 · 26-05-2014 10:44pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'd trawl through the cycling thread about imposing cyclist speed limits ( if I wasn't banned ) and see what input you made to those threads

I'd like to know myself! :rolleyes:

Cycle speed limits... on a human powered machine we call that, the wind.. or an uphill!

CramCycle · 26-05-2014 10:46pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'd trawl through the cycling thread about imposing cyclist speed limits ( if I wasn't banned ) and see what input you made to those threads

Your not banned from looking.

oflahero · 26-05-2014 10:46pm

Get a massage, Spook. Or go on a long, relaxing holiday. Every day on my bike I encounter at least one red-breaking driver, plenty of mobile-phone users and on average weekly, one going the wrong way up a one-way street. I've learned to let it go and accept that a small proportion of all road users are cockmunchers.

Cyclists mega-thread (WARNING: Before posting you must read post #1)

Comments