Runners in the cycle lane

mirv

To whoever it concerns, please stop running in the on-road cycle lanes. It's bad enough as a cyclist to have to contend with militant drivers, there's absolutely no need to run on the road itself. If a cyclist encounters a contra-flow runner in the cycle lane he's pretty much forced out onto the road where he/she is at the mercy of drivers unless the runner decides to get off the road and back to the footpath.

If it happens on a mixed cycle/foot path it's a bit more understandable if impolite if we don't stick to the designated path, or if there is an unavoidable obstacle or no footpath, but there's no bio-mechanical (if you mention the cushioning effects of tarmac vs concrete, please go away) or safety based reasoning to run on the road if there's a footpath handy.

Disclaimer: I know there's bad cyclists and there's bad runners, and conversely there's good cyclists and good runners but it can't hurt to remind ourselves to be courteous.

RUSTEDCORE

I do agree but could you cyclists stay off the footpath

Ive had to push many a person off their bike over the years for cycling near me and I refuse to tolerate it any longer

Seanie_H

mirv wrote: »

If a cyclist encounters a contra-flow runner in the cycle lane he's pretty much forced out onto the road where he/she is at the mercy of drivers unless the runner decides to get off the road and back to the footpath.

Consider the option of stopping exactly where you are instead of heading in to traffic. You'll certainly make your point to the runner too.

You're dead right though. It annoys me when I'm heading down the canal by Leeson Street and pedestrians walk down the cycle path.

Can't we all get along.

MrCreosote

Seanie_H wrote: »

Can't we all get along.

RUSTEDCORE wrote: »

Ive had to push many a person off their bike over the years for cycling near me and I refuse to tolerate it any longer

Apparently not...

Stone Deaf 4evr

Slightly related, but it would be a lot more pleasant to stay running on the footpath if dog owners wouldn't leave festering piles of turds all over the place. Autumn is the worst when there are leaves down and its impossible to avoid every booby trap left in wait!

Stella Virgo

RUSTEDCORE wrote: »

I do agree but could you cyclists stay off the footpath

Ive had to push many a person off their bike over the years for cycling near me and I refuse to tolerate it any longer

now.now. dont be bold boy,some day one these chaps will get up and kick the ****e out of you....share and share alike.

McWotever

Why can we not mention the effect between Tarmac and Concrete? Is it because it justifies most people's reasons for running on the road?

mirv

Because road safety entirely trumps the highly anecdotal difference between tarmac and concrete. Just because tarmac/asphalt is softer than concrete in an academic sense doesn't mean your joints will know the difference - your choice of footwear will be the deciding factor.

If you really need to run on tarmac, parks provide a much better environment in terms of air quality, surfaces (tarmac, trail and grass) than the dubious merits of illegally contra-flow running on the roadside cycle paths.

McWotever wrote: »

Why can we not mention the effect between Tarmac and Concrete? Is it because it justifies most people's reasons for running on the road?

Zyzz

RUSTEDCORE wrote: »

I do agree but could you cyclists stay off the footpath

Ive had to push many a person off their bike over the years for cycling near me and I refuse to tolerate it any longer

If I ever see you out Ill be sure to run you down so :rolleyes:





..if you enter the cycle lane

RUSTEDCORE

Stella Virgo wrote: »

now.now. dont be bold boy,some day one these chaps will get up and kick the ****e out of you....share and share alike.

Actually one did punch me then fly off on their bike once
Only makes me more aggressive.

Rower2

its nice running on the cycle lane - less chance of getting hit by cars reversing blindly out of their drives

McWotever

mirv wrote: »

Just because tarmac/asphalt is softer than concrete in an academic sense doesn't mean your joints will know the difference

That is a ridiculous argument. Your lungs don't know smoking is bad for them, by your reasoning smoking is ok?

We all know sustained running on concrete will eventually smash your knees up, as will sustained smoking will clog your lungs up. You won't notice it in your knees over one run, same as you wouldn't notice over one cigarette.

It's not going to be an acute problem it'll be a chronic one

mirv

Your lungs do know smoking is bad for them, you try doing any kind of cardio right after having a single cigarette, I dares ya.

What sort of silly reductio ad absurdum game are you trying to play?

If you think tarmac is cushioning, just go ahead and try to run on tarmac with your bare feet, and then again with your runners. Then do the same with a concrete surface. Then just for giggles do it again onto a properly soft surface like a dirt trail. You'll probably notice the difference between going barefoot and being runners more than the surface itself.

The 'we all know' stance is simply unsubstantiated myth, considering there's no peer reviewed evidence to suggest there are any measurable benefits to running on tarmac versus concrete, especially in the context where the tarmac exists on a car and bicycle populated road with an adjacent footpath and where genuine safety issues for the users of the road should be taking priority.

Paranoid Mandroid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwwxEf1P6aM

DaveyDave

As a cyclist who has just taken up running, I agree with this. The off-road bike lanes I have no problem being occupied by runners. Just as long as they're not in the middle of the path/bike lane, otherwise I wouldn't be able to pass safely. I rarely use off-road bike lanes though, or bike lanes in general now that I think about it.

But the off road bike lanes is a no no, it puts motorists in their place and forces them to give us room, running in them defeats the purpose.

At least we're all healthy

rom

http://vimeo.com/59477119

MrCreosote

As runners don't pay road tax, they should stay off the road at ALL times! That includes on road cycle lanes.:p

rom

MrCreosote wrote: »

As runners don't pay road tax, they should stay off the road at ALL times! That includes on road cycle lanes.:p

Looking at the list it seem that you have more of a right to use the road if you don't pay motor tax. The cars are the real problem

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html

average_runner

mirv wrote: »

Because road safety entirely trumps the highly anecdotal difference between tarmac and concrete. Just because tarmac/asphalt is softer than concrete in an academic sense doesn't mean your joints will know the difference - your choice of footwear will be the deciding factor.

If you really need to run on tarmac, parks provide a much better environment in terms of air quality, surfaces (tarmac, trail and grass) than the dubious merits of illegally contra-flow running on the roadside cycle paths.

Do you use the cycle lanes on footpaths for your bike? Cause I am fell up of cyclist hogging the road when a bike lane on the footpath.

average_runner

MrCreosote wrote: »

As runners don't pay road tax, they should stay off the road at ALL times! That includes on road cycle lanes.:p

Dont give the government ideas

121212

Yeah right, maybe when cyclists stop using the footpath

ThisRegard

Cycle lane conversation is the mobius strip of boards.ie, it appears to have no start or end, and continuously goes over the same ground getting nowhere different.

For what it's worth, I hate sprouts.

T runner

mirv wrote: »

Your lungs do know smoking is bad for them, you try doing any kind of cardio right after having a single cigarette, I dares ya.

What sort of silly reductio ad absurdum game are you trying to play?

If you think tarmac is cushioning, just go ahead and try to run on tarmac with your bare feet, and then again with your runners. Then do the same with a concrete surface. Then just for giggles do it again onto a properly soft surface like a dirt trail. You'll probably notice the difference between going barefoot and being runners more than the surface itself.

The 'we all know' stance is simply unsubstantiated myth, considering there's no peer reviewed evidence to suggest there are any measurable benefits to running on tarmac versus concrete, especially in the context where the tarmac exists on a car and bicycle populated road with an adjacent footpath and where genuine safety issues for the users of the road should be taking priority.

Just to clear up the unsubstantaited myth: concrete is 6 times harder than dirt trail, tarmac is 3 times harder than dirt trail ergo, concrete is twice as hard on your joints as tarmac. Your description of this difference as "anecdotal" is not substantiated and untrue. And your legs do feel the difference, immediately. Your legs might not, but you arent a runner.(Your ignorance of surfaces gives you away)
Therefore, It makes sense to bias your running towards the softer surface especially if youre on high mileage and want to protect your joints. Even trying your best on many commutes will leave you with well over half your journey on concrete, if you stay off tarmac.
As many on high mileage run on commutes this comes down to a choice between tarmac and concrete.
If there is a clear road ahead: no cyclists and generally no vehicles ill go on the tarmac. If i see a bike in the distance ill generally step off, ideally before the cyclist even notices. Ive never had a situation where a cyclist has had to make any change to his/her cycling pattern because of me borrowing their lane when they are over 100m metres away. In fact, the only feedback ive received is from some cyclists nodding or saying thanks, appreciating that there is not a safety problem with concientious runners, who dont have a resource like tarmac for running healthily themselves.
So your issue seems to be the eventuality that a runner stays on the cycle lane and forces you out? I would find that an extraordinary act of selfishness. Have you actually encountered thsi yourself or is it merely a theoretical hazard as far as your experience is concerned?
I understand the principle of systems and that by all obeying them to the letter it forces the potential abusers to comply or at least isolates them. That said for a system to work there needs to be adequate infrastructure.
And in a culture where drivers speed through red lights killing dozens of pedestrians a year, cyclists ignore all lights completly and cause crashes with unexpected manouvers....then your perceived sin against the inoffensive runner seems trivial at best.
Should a runner force a cyclist out onto the road by occupying a cycle lane, absoultely not! Can a runner temporarily occupy a tarmac cycle lane to ease long term joint damage cased by hard surfaces, at no risk to anyone? Yes, I think so.
How does this concientious infraction rate in the scheme of Irish commuter culture? On the considerate side, and on the extremely minor side i would have thought. I think your own ship needs more work than ours. (im a runner, cyclist and motorist).

MrCreosote

T runner wrote: »

Just to clear up the unsubstantaited myth: concrete is 6 times harder than dirt trail, tarmac is 3 times harder than dirt trail ergo, concrete is twice as hard on your joints as tarmac. Your description of this difference as "anecdotal" is not substantiated and untrue. And your legs do feel the difference, immediately. Your legs might not, but you arent a runner.(Your ignorance of surfaces gives you away)
Therefore, It makes sense to bias your running towards the softer surface especially if youre on high mileage and want to protect your joints. Even trying your best on many commutes will leave you with well over half your journey on concrete, if you stay off tarmac.

There's one other unsubstantiated myth to clear up as well. There is NO evidence that running on any kind of surface causes arthritis, or is bad for your joints. All of the scientific evidence suggests the opposite, that it is in fact protective.

(Possibly there is a higher risk of stress fractures on harder surfaces, but that's about it.)

I run and cycle. Runners in on-road cycle lanes are dangerous for cyclists and themselves- you don't expect them, they are unpredictable, they don't hear bikes as easily as cars. You could argue that cyclists should expect the unexpected, but regardless a crash is more likely. The selfishness is on the part of the runner or walker- they always have an alternative path available to them.

PaulieC

MrCreosote wrote: »

The selfishness is on the part of the runner or walker- they always have an alternative path available to them.

The last interaction I had with a cyclist was when I was crossing the railway tracks at Lansdowne Road. He mounted the path on the opposite side of the road and ran me into the wall. The only reason he didn't get pushed out onto the road was because I knew there were cars crossing.
It doesn't matter if people are cyclists, runners or motorists, the only people who will be treated with respect by me are the people who respect others by acting with care and responsibility and not doing stupid, harmful things out of some sense of entitlement.
Basically don't act like a douchebag. Whatever means of locomotion you are using.

FrClintPower

PaulieC wrote: »

The last interaction I had with a cyclist was when I was crossing the railway tracks at Lansdowne Road. He mounted the path on the opposite side of the road and ran me into the wall. The only reason he didn't get pushed out onto the road was because I knew there were cars crossing.
It doesn't matter if people are cyclists, runners or motorists, the only people who will be treated with respect by me are the people who respect others by acting with care and responsibility and not doing stupid, harmful things out of some sense of entitlement.
Basically don't act like a douchebag. Whatever means of locomotion you are using.

A great philosophy for life in general....

MrCreosote

Brothers, we should be struggling together.We should all be united against our common enemy!

The Judean People's Front?!

No- the motorists

digger2d2

Also, please don't run in the middle lane of the M50 as you will likely get stuck behind many 60 something females with country reg plates doing approximately 80 kph being under and overtaken for long stretches... Now this sh1t really does my t1ts in arrrggghhh:mad::mad:
On the cycling thing, I do run from time to time on the on-path cycle lanes but I always run toward oncoming cyclists and move out of their way well in advance. In fact, I've got many a nod of appreciation but also some stunned looks as though they're thinking "Did that fcuking runner actually just clear the way for me"!!

Palytoxin

digger2d2 wrote: »

Also, please don't run in the middle lane of the M50 as you will likely get stuck behind many 60 something females with country reg plates doing approximately 80 kph being under and overtaken for long stretches... Now this sh1t really does my t1ts in arrrggghhh:mad::mad:
On the cycling thing, I do run from time to time on the on-path cycle lanes but I always run toward oncoming cyclists and move out of their way well in advance. In fact, I've got many a nod of appreciation but also some stunned looks as though they're thinking "Did that fcuking runner actually just clear the way for me"!!

You saying that does my "tits in", having a reg from outside Dublin means nothing.

And for what it's worth I don't see why people couldn't step onto the path if a bike is coming, it's what I'd do anyway, all it takes is stepping up a couple of inches onto the path mid-stride for a couple of seconds.

digger2d2

Palytoxin wrote: »

having a reg from outside Dublin means nothing.
.

It does based on my experience/numbers I counted and I did become quite obsessed with this for a couple of weeks last year . However, just cos the reg plate is not a "D" doesn't mean that it couldn't be driven by a Dub...

Palytoxin

digger2d2 wrote: »

It does based on my experience/numbers I counted and I did become quite obsessed with this for a couple of weeks last year . However, just cos the reg plate is not a "D" doesn't mean that it couldn't be driven by a Dub...

There you go, anecdotal evidence at best

digger2d2

Palytoxin wrote: »

There you go, anecdotal evidence at best

The smiley face indicates the lack of scientfic evidence etc. etc. I'm acknowledging that!

Palytoxin

digger2d2 wrote: »

The smiley face indicates the lack of scientfic evidence etc. etc. I'm acknowledging that!

There's only a few things I take offense over, this whole topic is one of them, I'm a proud Laois man!

digger2d2

Palytoxin wrote: »

There's only a few things I take offense over, this whole topic is one of them, I'm a proud Laois man!

Jaysus, your lot are the worst offenders;):D

In fairness, although it drives me mental, I got a lift to the airport recently from the oh's Dad and he drove the whole way in the middle lane with me practically fitting in the back seat and he's a Dub!

TFBubendorfer

digger2d2 wrote: »

Also, please don't run in the middle lane of the M50 as you will likely get stuck behind many 60 something females with country reg plates doing approximately 80 kph being under and overtaken for long stretches...

It describes my mother-in-law's driving fairly accurately, though she is in her 70s and she does have a D plate on her car.

....

And the topic of the thread was what exactly? Or have we gone beyond that already?

mirv

In your sprawling mess of an badly written post you've cleared almost nothing up.

Do you even understand what anecdotal and unsubstantiated mean? I could say your argument is exactly 6 times more stupid than mine, and that doesn't mean it's any more substantiated. That's why I've tried to include a simple example that most people can follow to make a point but you've managed to go on blithering without fully reading my post.

Do you understand the concept of context? Tarmac/asphalt may be softer than concrete in an academic sense, but for the purposes of something truly soft like cartilage and ligaments they're both equally hard - it's like asking whether you'd want to be hit by a car (hard) or a lorry (harder).

Besides I wanted to steer away from insipid arguments about the merits of tarmacs apparent softness as I have had encounters with runners hogging the cycle lane who don't move out of the way, just two days ago hence the inspiration for my post. The runner in question didn't move out of the way, had an empty footpath beside him, and I had traffic to my right which I didn't want to veer into. It was pure selfishness.

Similarly, just because some runners will jump out of the way when they travel contra flow on a cycle path doesn't mean all runners will. I don't want or need to play a game of chicken every time I encounter a runner. When a bicycle can travel at 25-45kph it's not fair that the onus is on me to dodge a runner when I may have motor vehicles behind me that could run me over. Similarly for people who reverse out of their driveway - I'm pretty sure that the last place you'd check in your mirrors for obstacles is upstream on a cycle path after having cleared the footpath (where most peds would be).

For your information, I do stop at red lights and I stay away from the footpaths unless I dismount my bicycle. I prefer to run in parks or mountain trails if possible. There's plenty of bicycle free tarmac, grass and trails in our parks which are far more scenic, safer and pleasant than salmoning up an urban cycle path using a dodgy argument such as surface hardness.

T runner wrote: »

Just to clear up the unsubstantaited myth: concrete is 6 times harder than dirt trail, tarmac is 3 times harder than dirt trail ergo, concrete is twice as hard on your joints as tarmac. Your description of this difference as "anecdotal" is not substantiated and untrue. And your legs do feel the difference, immediately. Your legs might not, but you arent a runner.(Your ignorance of surfaces gives you away)
Therefore, It makes sense to bias your running towards the softer surface especially if youre on high mileage and want to protect your joints. Even trying your best on many commutes will leave you with well over half your journey on concrete, if you stay off tarmac.
As many on high mileage run on commutes this comes down to a choice between tarmac and concrete.
If there is a clear road ahead: no cyclists and generally no vehicles ill go on the tarmac. If i see a bike in the distance ill generally step off, ideally before the cyclist even notices. Ive never had a situation where a cyclist has had to make any change to his/her cycling pattern because of me borrowing their lane when they are over 100m metres away. In fact, the only feedback ive received is from some cyclists nodding or saying thanks, appreciating that there is not a safety problem with concientious runners, who dont have a resource like tarmac for running healthily themselves.
So your issue seems to be the eventuality that a runner stays on the cycle lane and forces you out? I would find that an extraordinary act of selfishness. Have you actually encountered thsi yourself or is it merely a theoretical hazard as far as your experience is concerned?
I understand the principle of systems and that by all obeying them to the letter it forces the potential abusers to comply or at least isolates them. That said for a system to work there needs to be adequate infrastructure.
And in a culture where drivers speed through red lights killing dozens of pedestrians a year, cyclists ignore all lights completly and cause crashes with unexpected manouvers....then your perceived sin against the inoffensive runner seems trivial at best.
Should a runner force a cyclist out onto the road by occupying a cycle lane, absoultely not! Can a runner temporarily occupy a tarmac cycle lane to ease long term joint damage cased by hard surfaces, at no risk to anyone? Yes, I think so.
How does this concientious infraction rate in the scheme of Irish commuter culture? On the considerate side, and on the extremely minor side i would have thought. I think your own ship needs more work than ours. (im a runner, cyclist and motorist).

spurscormac

Don't get me started on the numpty cycling in the middle of one lane of traffic on a dual carriageway while ignoring the cycle path to his left. If its someone on a road bike keeping pace with the moving traffic, I'm fine with them on the road rather than the sometimes dodgy cycle lanes. However, when its someone idling along blocking traffic at a speed I could run at, then I get annoyed.
#EndRant

In all seriousness though, and getting back to the original point, I see no issue with running on a cycle path providing that you're courteous & get out of the way if someone comes along on a bike. Most people would have the common courtesy to do that, however, you will find some idiots (like you seem to have encountered mirv) that don't.
The same way you'll find some idiots on a bike or in a car that run red lights or other myriad of dangerous maneouvres.

Be aware though, that sometimes, you might come across someone who are normally very careful, whether thats pedestrians, runners, cyclists or motorists, who can for any manner of reasons get distracted, miss something or do the wrong thing without realising it until after the fact.

Try and see it from that perspective and ease off on the mass generalisations.

rom

mirv wrote: »

I wanted to steer away from insipid arguments

:rolleyes:

RayCun

Tarmac/asphalt may be softer than concrete in an academic sense, but for the purposes of something truly soft like cartilage and ligaments they're both equally hard - it's like asking whether you'd want to be hit by a car (hard) or a lorry (harder)

1. this would be relevant if you were banging your ligaments off the ground. But you're not. Banging raw ligaments off grass would probably be unpleasant too.
2. (this is the bit that's too funny to let go) Cars and lorries are equally hard. Lorries have more mass. The damage done is a combination of mass and speed. If I had to choose, I'd rather be hit by a lorry doing 2 miles an hour than a car doing 60 (or hit a muddy field at 100mph)

mirv

You're entirely missing the point anyway, I'm not suggesting that you slap raw ligaments off the ground either. In terms of the cushioning effects of concrete/tarmac, the choice of footwear supersedes the choice of running surface.

And for the sake of illegally running against the flow on the road when there is a footpath nearby, it's bloody common sense that if there were an accident causing harm to you or a cyclist that it's the runners fault. Whether you're 'courteous' enough to step off momentarily or not, you're still in the wrong.

T runner

MrCreosote wrote: »

There's one other unsubstantiated myth to clear up as well. There is NO evidence that running on any kind of surface causes arthritis, or is bad for your joints. All of the scientific evidence suggests the opposite, that it is in fact protective. (Possibly there is a higher risk of stress fractures on harder surfaces, but that's about it.)

Always be careful when you say "NO" evidence. Athletics and Osteoarthritis

"Sports that subject joints to repetitive high levels of impact and torsional loading increase the risk of articular cartilage degeneration and the resulting clinical syndrome of osteoarthritis"

If a runner runs in the direction of oncoming traffic he can see the cyclist coming so wont be on the cycle path to act unexpectedly. As has been pointed out by most posters many cyclists nod or thank the runner as an acknowledgement that they have no issue with anyone sharing their resource so long as it doesn't affect their pattern of cycling.

If a runner runs on an on-road cycle track with his back to approaching cyclists or refuses to vacate a cycle track when a cyclist is approaching then this is clearly dangerous.

As i said, its not ideal but in the culture of Irish road and path users the concientious runner on an on-road cycle lane seems on the monor and considerate side of road offences.

Some resources need to be shared as the infrastructure is not there. As long as people are concientious, considerate and safe sharing them there shouldn't be a problem.

I run and cycle. Runners in on-road cycle lanes are dangerous for cyclists and themselves- you don't expect them, they are unpredictable, they don't hear bikes as easily as cars. You could argue that cyclists should expect the unexpected, but regardless a crash is more likely. The selfishness is on the part of the runner or walker- they always have an alternative path available to them.[/QUOTE]

mirv

Taken from the same abstract;

"However, moderate habitual exercise does not increase the risk of osteo arthritis ; selected sports improve strength and mobility in older people and people with mild and moderate osteoarthritis."

Anyone can take a quote out of context, and that abstract doesn't go into the murky depths of recommending to run on tarmac rather than concrete for the sake of joint health. If I were to use as ridiculous an argument as you, one could say that if anything, it recommends you not to run at all. You're clutching at straws now!

The fact is people are unpredictable, and given a choice no-one would like to have a person running at them in the cycle lane. I'd have the same attitude to people cycling the wrong direction or cycling on the footpath when there's a serviceable cycle lane or road nearby - it doesn't matter if they'll slow down or step aside - they shouldn't be there in the first place.

T runner wrote: »

blah blah

T runner

mirv wrote: »

In your sprawling mess of an badly written post you've cleared almost nothing up

Now, now. In your OP you admonished a lack of courtesy........

"In your sprawling mess of an of an badly written post". Hypocrisy and self righteousness are two sides of the same coin they say....

Do you even understand what anecdotal and unsubstantiated mean?

Yes I do, carry on.

I could say your argument is exactly 6 times more stupid than mine, and that doesn't mean it's any more substantiated..... That's why I've tried to include a simple example that most people can follow to make a point but you've managed to go on blithering without fully reading my post.

Manners!

Do you understand the concept of context? Tarmac/asphalt may be softer than concrete in an academic sense, but for the purposes of something truly soft like cartilage and ligaments they're both equally hard

That is incorrect, concrete is twice as hard as Tarmac. Tarmac is 3 times harder than dirt.

- it's like asking whether you'd want to be hit by a car (hard) or a lorry (harder).

Not a great example but well go with it .....


The momentum of a vehicle would equal its velocity times its mass? Agreed
So in your example and all other things being equal, getting hit twice as hard by the vehicle would entail either the vehicle being twice as large or a vehicle of the same weight hitting the pedestrian with twice the velocity.


At an impact speed of 30 km/h, a pedestrian would have an 87% chance of survival after being struck by a modern car.

At an impact speed of 45-50 km/h a pedestrian will have only a 27% chance of survival.

With this in mind, if a pedestrian had a choice of being hit by a car at 30kph or a car at 60kph/lorry at 30kph i think id know which she would choose.
And the choice would be the difference between being likely to live or likely to die. Not exactly just "academic" is it?

Some scientific backing. Here's a scholarly article Athletics and Osteoarthritis that notes the risks to joint health of high volume training to athletes.

"Sports that subject joints to repetitive high levels of impact and torsional loading increase the risk of articular cartilage degeneration and the resulting clinical syndrome of osteoarthritis"

"They should consider measures that decrease the intensity and frequency of impact and torsional loading of joints"

Presumable intensity can be decreased by choosing surfaces a multiple of times softer.

Besides I wanted to steer away from insipid arguments about the merits of tarmacs apparent softness

Not surprised....Retreat!

as I have had encounters with runners hogging the cycle lane who don't move out of the way, just two days ago hence the inspiration for my post

.

You mean runner?
An incident with one runner has provoked your self righteous tirade?

Its minor. Compare it to the reckless antics of many cyclists and its nothing.

Every philosophy has an hypocrisy rule: does without sin cast the first stone may sound familiar.

Dont accuse others of being discourteous and ill-mannerred with discourteous and ill-mannerred posts.

Don't pontificate about one minor incident when many cyclists break several laws during each commute, and with the levels of hypocrisy displayed in your posta to date, id be astounded if you werent one of them.

mirv

Well done on spotting a single grammatical error.

1) Your numbers are unsubstantiated - you're just drawing figures from thin air. The viscosity of tarmac will vary with temperature, its formulation and porosity so hence its hardness will vary, as would the hardness of dirt depending on how packed it is and if its been wet. Playing hard and fast with numbers you don't understand is just plain silly.

2) I've never said that tarmac isn't softer than concrete, I just said it doesn't matter how much softer it is.

3) Momentum is indeed mass x velocity. However, the transfer of momentum depends on the relative masses of the two objects in a collision. It's simply not the case that if a car or lorry strikes a human, the human will be sent flying and the car/lorry will be stopped entirely thereby transferring all of its momentum to the human. The difference in mass between a human and a car/lorry is great enough that it doesn't matter which vehicle a body hits (if we're talking about simple billiard ball physics that is).

4) Comparing a car at 60kph to a lorry at 30kph is a matter of comparing apples and oranges. You're reaching and using a straw man argument here.

5) Just because I had one specific example that happened two days ago doesn't mean it's not happened before in the past. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of time?

6) In the disclaimer in my very first post I recognised that there's two sides to every coin; good and bad behaviour from both cyclists and runners. Why am I not allowed to complain about a specific event just because there are rule and law breaking cyclists around who aren't me? I consider red light breaking cyclists and people who cross the road in front of traffic equally at fault. I obey the rules of the road, and I'm not recommending that people break any rules or laws - unlike those who do recommend running upstream on the cycle path.

TFBubendorfer

Mod Post: Since this thread - like every other thread about the same subject, but much quicker than expected - has already degenerated into a silly slagging match, I am hereby closing it.