Cyclists on a Backroad

shedweller

Jawgap wrote: »

I agree - I tried googling 'lycra' and this popped up..... (it's ok for work!)

That's for the WTF thread!:D

Ms. Pingui

UnawareCaesar wrote: »

The poor horse having to stop up, rest and then the huge effort it takes to start walking again.

Invalid point followed by this is off topic doesn't mean you win a debate.

Poor cyclist having to stop up, rest and then the huge effort it takes to start cycling again.

I have no interest in "winning a debate" on the internet.

VinLieger

NS77 wrote: »

Eh? What danger do cyclists present? I think you'll find the danger is posed by reckless and impatient drivers....

Ehh generalise much? All cyclists arent perfect just like all motorists arent perfect. Theres dangerous and impatient cyclists out there as well who break lights and dont obey rules just like theres drivers who do the same.

topper75

Jawgap wrote: »

I agree - I tried googling 'lycra' and this popped up..... (it's ok for work!)

That'll be the horse of the Grand Wizard of The Aryan Brothers (Leitrim Chapter). He was around yesterday looking for it. The mare bust out over the ditch on Saturday morning.

UnawareCaesar

Ms. Pingui wrote: »

Poor cyclist having to stop up, rest and then the huge effort it takes to start cycling again.

I have no interest in "winning a debate" on the internet.

As explained its a completely different thing for a horse and a cyclist and I'm speaking fully from experience of both. You made a point in which you compared two completely different things and I tried to give you a somewhat reasonable comparison. If you still think the two things are the same hop on a bike.

NS77

VinLieger wrote: »

Ehh generalise much? All cyclists arent perfect just like all motorists arent perfect. Theres dangerous and impatient cyclists out there as well who break lights and dont obey rules just like theres drivers who do the same.

No generalisation there... you'll note I referred to "reckless and impatient drivers", not all drivers. The quoted post made reference to the extra numbers of cyclists being dangerous - this is the real generalisation. Extra cyclists do not make the roads dangerous just by being there.

As a driver, cyclist and pedestrian myself, I've seen idiocy in all forms of transport. Likewise, I've seen exemplary behaviour in all cases.

VinLieger

NS77 wrote: »

No generalisation there... you'll note I referred to "reckless and impatient drivers", not all drivers. The quoted post made reference to the extra numbers of cyclists being dangerous - this is the real generalisation. Extra cyclists do not make the roads dangerous just by being there.

As a driver, cyclist and pedestrian myself, I've seen idiocy in all forms of transport. Likewise, I've seen exemplary behaviour in all cases.

Fair enough but your post was a bit missleading in that you said "what danger do cyclists present?" and not "more cyclists".
However i disagree in that as well, more of anything on the roads obviously increases the danger factor as as we are agreed on theres idiots using all forms of transportation so more stuff = more idiots

snubbleste

I have a car and I'll do what I want when I want :cool:

NS77

VinLieger wrote: »

theres idiots using all forms of transportation so more stuff = more idiots

My point exactly, the danger is with the idiots... not just because one person is, or one hundred people are, cycling, driving, or walking down the road.

hoodwinked

shedweller wrote: »

Look, does anybody honestly think it's realistic to pull over and stop EVERY time a car comes up behind them?
Think about it for a minute and imagine how much of a complete pain in the hole it would be.

its as realistic that a car has to pull back and slow to a crawl creating a train of vehicles leading to traffic jams/tailbacks every time a cyclist on a back road acts like a jerk... (kinda like when tractors do it but in fairness they do tend to pull in when they can)


imagine how much of a complete pain in the hole it would be....

snubbleste wrote: »

I have a car and I'll do what I want when I want :cool:

see that attitude on both motorists and cyclists causes all these problems :eek:

Mycroft H

hoodwinked wrote: »

its as realistic that a car has to pull back and slow to a crawl creating a train of vehicles leading to traffic jams/tailbacks every time a cyclist on a back road acts like a jerk... (kinda like when tractors do it but in fairness they do tend to pull in when they can)


imagine how much of a complete pain in the hole it would be....

tractors ≠ cyclists

hoodwinked

BX 19 wrote: »

tractors ≠ cyclists

i know! Tractors are bigger and fatter and still can be nice to motorists trying to get by, by letting them pass....

Solair

El Spearo wrote: »

the roads were developed for motorists...

Many were developed for cows and horses, cars were definitely an afterthought

Cycling holidays are becoming quite a big deal and it's brining in a good lot of tourism in some areas.

We need more greenways e.g. using old railway lines to make cycling a lot more safe and enjoyable in rural areas.

I was behind a cyclist in Cork City yesterday, and I litterally couldn't pass him safely because there were traffic islands all along the road and no space.

He kept looking angrily over his shoulder and gesturing me to pass while still cycling.

I'm not sure what the problem was, I gave him several meters of clearance ahead of me and just drove slowly until it was safe to pass.

You just can't please some people.

Nika Bolokov

I think those who are annoyed by the increasing volume of Tour de France packs of mainly middle aged men dressed in day glo Lycra on board bikes that cost 1 - 3 k should just chill out and keep calm.

This seems to be a fad among middle aged men at the moment and it will die out over the next 6 - 12 months.

They will soon realize that packing a beer gut and flabby arse into skin tight Lycra in order to peddle along slowly in suburban Dublin makes you look like an idiot :P

hardCopy

El Spearo wrote: »

the roads were developed for motorists...and there is no such thing as a bike tax..so cyclists are free loaders in the roads in my view.

also cyclists who dont use the cycle lanes grind my gears too...

its all fun and games lads, but at the end of the day no matter what happens, you clip a stupid cyclist and no matter whose fault it is its the driver. its nonsense.

The back roads of Ireland were not developed for motorists, they were developed long before the invention of the internal combustion engine. Most back roads haven't changed since the days of the pony & trap and cycling to mass on a Sunday, it's the motorists who should f@ck off and stick to the ring roads.

Bring your bike on a rack and cycle the last mile to your destination.

Tiddlypeeps

Ms. Pingui wrote: »

When I ride my horses on the backroads by my house, I pull in to allow motorists pass. I don't expect people to drive along at horse pace behind me, why can't cyclists do the same?

You are very unlikely to encounter what a cyclist encounters while on a horse. Road users are cautious of horses because they are unpredictable and could do serious damage to their car if they took their mind to it. Have you ever had a driver try to over take you on a horse while there was no ditch for you to pull into and another car was passing on the other side of the road at the same time?

I don't cycle anymore because this happens so often. When I used to cycle this would happen at least a couple of times a week. It's f**king terrifying!

Most drivers are perfectly lovely to cyclists on the road, but just having the few that feel the need to be aggressive to cyclists justifies the decision to cycle two abreast imo. Most aren't doing it as a f**k you to all motorists, they are doing it to protect themselves against the few that feel the need to be a*seholes. They are way to vulnerable on the road, if something goes wrong it's not likely to be just a ding on their bike, it's likely serious injury or death.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I've no problem with people who use bikes as transportation using back roads, but people who are cycling as some form of recreation, i.e. covered in spandex, carbon fibre bikes, head down so clearly not enjoying the scenery....well, they're basically putting themselves and other road users at risk for what is ultimately a stupid ****ing hobby

Why does it make a difference why the person is on the road?

If you get stuck in traffic because there is a match on do you go mental because your day is held up because of people taking part in a stupid hobby?
Actually I can understand being irritated by being held up, but I don't understand feeling entitled enough to tell the other road users to get off the road.

gramar

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why?

You pay MOTOR tax for the privilege of pumping our pollution, not any form of ROAD tax. Bikes don't produce said pollution and hence have no need to be taxed for it.
Road are funded centrally from the tax pot and motor tax bears no relation to road maintenance costs.

And for the record bikes have 23% VAT on them, even the safety gear is taxed!

I agree that bikes should be exempt from tax but cyclists should have to pass a road safety test. You'd can't take a car out onto the road without a license so why should you be able to hop on a bike do so?

seamus

Solair wrote: »

Many were developed for cows and horses, cars were definitely an afterthought

Cars were most certainly an afterthought. Even the practice of laying a smoother covering on rickety roads predates car use, it was primarily the cycling lobby in the UK who called for and achieved the first paved roads. Bikes were widely used for deliveries, and while far faster than a trap and pony, were less comfortable on your crappy dirt and rock roads. Paving the major routes allowed for fast and comfortable bicycle deliveries

So far from bikes using the cars' roads, it is in fact the other way around.

Jawgap

Nika Bolokov wrote: »

I think those who are annoyed by the increasing volume of Tour de France packs of mainly middle aged men dressed in day glo Lycra on board bikes that cost 1 - 3 k should just chill out and keep calm.

This seems to be a fad among middle aged men at the moment and it will die out over the next 6 - 12 months.

They will soon realize that packing a beer gut and flabby arse into skin tight Lycra in order to peddle along slowly in suburban Dublin makes you look like an idiot :P

Doubt it - the MAMILs are here to stay (article from 2010)- but of course people will join and leave the demographic.

Some will realise the ridiculousness of being fat arsed in lycra, but a lot realise how easy it is to incorporate cycling into your daily routine and they'll appreciate the health benefits it brings.

I never look forward to doing my commute by car or bus, but even on the worst day commuting by bike is always enjoyable.

Jawgap

gramar wrote: »

I agree that bikes should be exempt from tax but cyclists should have to pass a road safety test. You'd can't take a car out onto the road without a license so why should you be able to hop on a bike do so?

Absolutely - because the driving test that motorists and professional drivers have to pass means they are all perfectly safe and competent drivers.

You need to think about that idea a bit more - first, how would you administer such a test? how would the provisions for it be enforced? Should there be an age limit and would that effect kid learning to ride and riding to school?

Why not have a licence and safety test to be a pedestrian - particularly on country roads with no pavements?

gramar

Jawgap wrote: »

Absolutely - because the driving test that motorists and professional drivers have to pass means they are all perfectly safe and competent drivers.

You need to think about that idea a bit more - first, how would you administer such a test? how would the provisions for it be enforced? Should there be an age limit and would that effect kid learning to ride and riding to school?

Why not have a licence and safety test to be a pedestrian - particularly on country roads with no pavements?

It mightn't be a bad idea for pedestrians either.

A test no matter what kind it is will never mean that any person is completely competent or knowledgeable but in the case of a road safety test then at least it would show that they are aware of the fundamental safety issues that any user of the public highway should be familiar with.
Cyclists on public roads are subject to pretty much the same rules as people in cars etc but yet are not subjected to at least a theory test.

desertcircus

Also: people comparing weekend cyclists in lycra to the Tour de France really need a less histrionic comparison. There are about 200 cyclists competing in the Tour, travelling in the region of 130-180 km a day on bikes costing about ten thousand quid a go and roads closed to traffic and clogged with support cars, media and medical staff. We know we're not in the Tour: if we were, the car behind us would come alongside to give us an energy drink and tell us to widen the gap on the peloton before we hit the ascent.

glic71rods46t0

OP, the first mistake you made was to assume that you can reason with the self righteous cycling brigade on boards!

Remember the movie "as good as it gets" when Mervin is asked how he writes about women so well, his answer works perfectly for cyclists: "I think of a man and take away reason & accountability"

My theory for the persecution complex amongst cyclists is that a high proportion of cyclists are members of the gay community (the tight fitting lycra and various other homo erotic aspects of cycling seems to attract them) and they are used to parading around "asserting" their "rights" and feeling the whole world is against them!

seamus

Hi Tim!

Still not found something else to bleat on about?

Oh noes! He's trying to attack my sexuality! He must be a supreme wordsmith to come up with dry cool wit like that!

Black Leather

Speaking as your typical skin-tight Lycra clad leisure cyclist, we are as entitled to use the roads as anyone else. Maybe, some motorists resent us because we are slim and fit and out in all weathers.

Ericaa

They have just as much of a right to use the road as you do.

Sauve

94tgdmxj6s370p wrote: »

My theory for the persecution complex amongst cyclists is that a high proportion of cyclists are members of the gay community (the tight fitting lycra and various other homo erotic aspects of cycling seems to attract them) and they are used to parading around "asserting" their "rights" and feeling the whole world is against them!

I'm a female cyclist and straight.
Explain why I have a 'persecution complex' please?

Jawgap

desertcircus wrote: »

........ We know we're not in the Tour: if we were, the car behind us would come alongside to give us an energy drink and tell us to widen the gap on the peloton before we hit the ascent.

Whoa, there - speak for yourself!!! My wife follows behind in the car - she's invaluable when it comes to commuter racing - and for getting me my spare bike when I puncture - she nags a bit on the race radio though:D

seamus wrote: »

Hi Tim!

Still not found something else to bleat on about?

Oh noes! He's trying to attack my sexuality! He must be a supreme wordsmith to come up with dry cool wit like that!

Damn!! Beaten to it!! Welcome back Timmy, we've missed you.....

glic71rods46t0

Sauve wrote: »

I'm a female cyclist and straight.
Explain why I have a 'persecution complex' please?

I did say "high proportion" so logic (look up a dictionary) suggests that not all are - ergo its possible that some are straight ..... not sure why you had to bring your gender into it but maybe you could refer to Mervins original quote!!!!

Persecution - you are on here defending cyclists against the rest of the world!!!?????

Surveyor11

94tgdmxj6s370p wrote: »

My theory for the persecution complex amongst cyclists is that a high proportion of cyclists are members of the gay community (the tight fitting lycra and various other homo erotic aspects of cycling seems to attract them) and they are used to parading around "asserting" their "rights" and feeling the whole world is against them!

This gave me a good chuckle.