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

paddyland

whisky_galore wrote: »

Nothing raises so much venom as cyclists, not tractors/white van men/micra drivers/bmw drivers. It's highly amusing.

Probably because the proportion of idiot cyclists is all the greater. They want to be treated as equals, yet they want to disregard everyone else.

There's plenty of decent, safe cyclists out there. It's a pity then, that they have to pay for the rotten behaviour of so many of their brethren. If this thread is any measure of the attitude of cyclists, it's all one big joke to them.

Militant cyclists. Doing everything in their power to undermine the whole pro-cycling agenda. We WANT you to cycle. We WANT you to have a better cycling infrastructure. The thanks we get, is for you to go around causing as much obstruction and offence as possible, turning all that goodwill against you.

SOME of you.

Oink

No Pants wrote: »

I suppose that while you were performing your critical evaluation of the cycle path you missed (a) the bus stop in the middle of it and (b) the fact that it comes to an abrupt end just before a junction, leaving the cyclist on a footpath.

No Pants, Op's question is: "Why do we tolerate them on our roads", i.e ALL the cyclists. 100% of them. He also clearly made the fair point that us cyclists (I'm one of them delinquents) don't pay "road tax".

So please stay on topic. There is no need to bring rational arguments into this.

No Pants

paddyland wrote: »

they have to pay

Is there a collection going on?

paddyland

ThisRegard wrote: »

paddyland shouldn't really post when drunk.

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.

Tenzor07

No Pants wrote: »

Is there a collection going on?

It's the militant cyclists I am worried about! I fear a "Junta" on the roads will be carried out by them, trying to force society to implement there regime of having working cycle-paths!! :eek:

No Pants

paddyland wrote: »

Did it occur to you that maybe I wasn't drunk

So that load of horse****e was sober output? :eek:

furiousox

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?...

So there's no point taking any of your posts seriously then?
Ok.

paddyland

Tenzor07 wrote: »

It's the militant cyclists I am worried about! I fear a "Junta" on the roads will be carried out by them, trying to force society to implement there regime of having working cycle-paths!! :eek:

You see, there's an issue right there, and it is this.

The entire cycling infrastructure that was put in over the past decade or so, no doubt at great expense, is an utter shambles. Designed by people who most definitely will never have to use it.

The militant cycling fraternity would purport to be in favour of proper cycle lanes. But therein lies the paradox. What the most militant cyclists are in favour of, is the right to cycle far too fast for the conditions, in full racing gear, without any consideration for other road users.

A properly designed and utilised cycle lane would ideally see large volumes of cyclists, many taken out of private cars, and sharing the road space with pedestrians, and other motor traffic, all travelling at relative rates. If such an infrastructure were to come to pass, the militant cyclists would gain no benefit, because the large numbers of ordinary, leisure and commuting cyclists would prevent the militant maniacs from cycling at full pelt, Giro-speed, as they so like to do. So they would end up out on the road, obstructing everyone else, and causing a danger, as they do anyway.

There is little enough road space in many cases for all the modes of transport that wish to use it. It is often difficult to put in proper cycle lanes. But in many cases, it is perfectly possible for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists coexist safely, given a properly designed environment.

The problem is, I see no room in that environment of pedestrians, regular cyclists and motorists, for the particular breed of speed freak cyclists that often dominate these debates. The only place for that is on properly designed racing tracks, and I am sure there are few enough of them around, too.

What we really need, is a properly designed cycling infrastructure for regular commuting and leisure cyclists, and then to banish the speed freak cyclists off the public highway altogether, and onto private racing tracks.

Now, let the dribbling continue...

No Pants

Here's a handy cheat sheet.


Militants



Not militants



Let me know if you'd like to go over that again.

paddyland

No Pants wrote: »

Here's a handy cheat sheet...

Let me know if you'd like to go over that again.

I see a group of guys admiring som heavy artillery, and then I see a bunch of cyclists hogging what looks to be a very narrow road.

Oink

paddyland wrote: »

I see a group of guys admiring som heavy artillery, and then I see a bunch of cyclists hogging what looks to be a very narrow road.

You're missing the point. If they're wearing long pants, they're militants. If they're wearing gloves, they're cyclists.

You're welcome.

CramCycle

paddyland wrote: »

The entire cycling infrastructure that was put in over the past decade or so, no doubt at great expense, is an utter shambles. Designed by people who most definitely will never have to use it.

Definitely

The militant cycling fraternity would purport to be in favour of proper cycle lanes. But therein lies the paradox. What the most militant cyclists are in favour of, is the right to cycle far too fast for the conditions, in full racing gear, without any consideration for other road users.

I am not sure who these militant cyclist who want cycle lanes are. I for one do not want cycle lanes at all with the rare exception that speed limits and junction design make it a requirement for safety reasons.

A properly designed and utilised cycle lane would ideally see large volumes of cyclists, many taken out of private cars, and sharing the road space with pedestrians, and other motor traffic, all travelling at relative rates. If such an infrastructure were to come to pass, the militant cyclists would gain no benefit, because the large numbers of ordinary, leisure and commuting cyclists would prevent the militant maniacs from cycling at full pelt, Giro-speed, as they so like to do. So they would end up out on the road, obstructing everyone else, and causing a danger, as they do anyway.

I cycle on the road, it is by far the safest place to be IMO. So your complaint is that I am cycling to fast for conditions but somehow I am holding people up. I can assure you after years of cycling in Dublin it is a rare day when a cyclist genuinely holds up traffic. It might seem that way until you hit the back of the car 20 metres in front of you but realistically, cyclists in a city do not obstruct traffic.

There is little enough road space in many cases for all the modes of transport that wish to use it. It is often difficult to put in proper cycle lanes. But in many cases, it is perfectly possible for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists coexist safely, given a properly designed environment.

Agreed, your starting to sound like one of those militant cyclists you were referring too.

The problem is, I see no room in that environment of pedestrians, regular cyclists and motorists, for the particular breed of speed freak cyclists that often dominate these debates. The only place for that is on properly designed racing tracks, and I am sure there are few enough of them around, too.

Who are these speed freaks? With the exception of the areas with the 30kmph speed limit, most cyclists cannot even get close to the speed limit, how does that make them speed freaks?

What we really need, is a properly designed cycling infrastructure for regular commuting and leisure cyclists, and then to banish the speed freak cyclists off the public highway altogether, and onto private racing tracks.

How are they going to get to work then?

No Pants

paddyland wrote: »

cycle far too fast for the conditions, in full racing gear, without any consideration for other road users.

Could you please elaborate on this? What speed, what conditions? Full racing gear is normally just a pair of shorts and a jersey, with maybe a cycling helmet. What would you prefer to see a cyclist wear? And please explain what lack of consideration to other road users you are referring to.

CramCycle

Oink wrote: »

You're missing the point. If they're wearing long pants, they're militants. If they're wearing gloves, they're cyclists.

You're welcome.

TBF, alot of cyclists have beards nowadays, it could be very confusing.

No Pants

CramCycle wrote: »

TBF, alot of cyclists have beards nowadays, it could be very confusing.

I read somewhere recently that cyclists should start to wear turbans under their helmets. That way if there's an incident with a fellow road user, it's an instant hate crime.

ThisRegard

No Pants wrote: »

Could you please elaborate on this? What speed, what conditions?

If he's implying that the junta cyclists go too fast for the 'conditions' (mortar fire, minefields, sharks, sharks with laser beams, who knows ?) then cars obviously are being reckless when driving on the same roads, and should be banned altogether.

No Pants

paddyland wrote: »

I see a bunch of cyclists hogging what looks to be a very narrow road.

The cyclists at the front are actually trackstanding because there's a car in front, just out of shot, holding them up.

CramCycle

No Pants wrote: »

I read somewhere recently that cyclists should start to wear turbans under their helmets. That way if there's an incident with a fellow road user, it's an instant hate crime.

Personally I think that everytime there is a minor incident, a non involved road user or pedestrian should walk over and hug the angriest party and then everyone else should chime in with the chorus of "Why can't we be friends", then both parties must sit down over a cup of tea or coffee (no haters either way) and a slice of cake of their choice and discuss why the incident took place. After this, they can then discuss with the other party the best ways for them both to avoid getting into such situations. Shake hands, see that we are all just people ad hopefully the next time they see each other, the only thing that will meet is a friendly glance with a mild mannered wave.

Everyone should also be required, by law, to leave on time with a minimum of 15 minutes extra time to account for these incidences. If everyone left 15 minutes earlier than they needed to, I imagine alot of these incidents would never take place.

Oink

CramCycle wrote: »

TBF, alot of cyclists have beards nowadays, it could be very confusing.

Well that's different. If they have facial hair, it's probably best to assume they're dodgy, just to be safe.

Take me for example. I have facial hair at the moment, and I thoroughly deserve any abuse I get for it. So if I see another beardo weirdo like me on a bike when I'm driving my car, they're fair game.

No Pants

CramCycle wrote: »

Everyone should also be required, by law, to leave on time with a minimum of 15 minutes extra time to account for these incidences. If everyone left 15 minutes earlier than they needed to, I imagine alot of these incidents would never take place.

There's some merit to that. My work day is pretty flexible, so I don't have the pressure to be there at a certain time. I generally start at 07:00 so I can leave earlier, but 07:30 is no big deal, or even 08:00.

I hate feeling pressed for time, so I tend to avoid it. It only ever occurs when I'm travelling for work. I agree that it makes every minor inconvenience seem like a massive personal insult.

Danjamin1

paddyland wrote: »

You see, there's an issue right there, and it is this.

The entire cycling infrastructure that was put in over the past decade or so, no doubt at great expense, is an utter shambles. Designed by people who most definitely will never have to use it.

The militant cycling fraternity would purport to be in favour of proper cycle lanes. But therein lies the paradox. What the most militant cyclists are in favour of, is the right to cycle far too fast for the conditions, in full racing gear, without any consideration for other road users.

A properly designed and utilised cycle lane would ideally see large volumes of cyclists, many taken out of private cars, and sharing the road space with pedestrians, and other motor traffic, all travelling at relative rates. If such an infrastructure were to come to pass, the militant cyclists would gain no benefit, because the large numbers of ordinary, leisure and commuting cyclists would prevent the militant maniacs from cycling at full pelt, Giro-speed, as they so like to do. So they would end up out on the road, obstructing everyone else, and causing a danger, as they do anyway.

There is little enough road space in many cases for all the modes of transport that wish to use it. It is often difficult to put in proper cycle lanes. But in many cases, it is perfectly possible for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists coexist safely, given a properly designed environment.

The problem is, I see no room in that environment of pedestrians, regular cyclists and motorists, for the particular breed of speed freak cyclists that often dominate these debates. The only place for that is on properly designed racing tracks, and I am sure there are few enough of them around, too.

What we really need, is a properly designed cycling infrastructure for regular commuting and leisure cyclists, and then to banish the speed freak cyclists off the public highway altogether, and onto private racing tracks.

Now, let the dribbling continue...

What on earth are you talking about?

paddyland

No Pants wrote: »

Could you please elaborate on this? What speed, what conditions?

Cyclists in full yellow warrior outfit storming through traffic light junctions and pedestrian crossings at full pelt when everyone else is stopped for one thing.

Cyclists who race to get into a narrow bus lane in front of a bus, and then stop pedalling, is another thing.

Cyclists going far too fast on public park footpaths and forest trails, where there are pedestrians, children, slow cyclists and dogs about.

Cyclists who do not leave adequate space between themselves and pedestrian and other traffic, despite admonishing everyone else for not leaving them space.

Cyclists who practice militant hypocrisy, loudly remonstrating against anyone who they feel infringes on their divine right to cycle as they please, but rubbish anyone who suggests there might be occasions when they should consider others.

Cyclists who travel in long lines and packs on busy country roads, leaving no possibility to safely overtake, and allowing long queues of traffic build up behind, until a hazardous situation develops where somebody does decide to overtake dangerously, and put everyone at risk. It is unfair, for example, to hold up traffic for miles on winding country roads such as the Roundwood road. Spread out, and let traffic pass when it is safe to do so. If you don't let them pass when it is safe, then someone will try to pass when it isn't safe.

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. Cyclists are sometimes hard to see. Your speed should be in relation to your ability to be seen, and to avoid and be avoided.

Now go on and have your little huff, as I am signing out.

ThisRegard

Don't go, you're great fun.

Oink

paddyland wrote: »

Cyclists in full yellow warrior outfit storming etc.
etc.
etc.

No no no no no, that's not what the thread is about.


Let me quote the OP: “Cyclists Why” "Why do we tolerate them on our roads".

=> Not "the ones who are cycling dangerously".
=> Not "the idiots on a bike"

The OP is about cyclists. All of them. You need to read the OP if you are going to give an opinion here.

Shedite27

CramCycle wrote: »

TBF, alot of cyclists have beards nowadays, it could be very confusing.

Luca Paolini is rocking quite a beard in the Giro at the moment. He's definitely a militant. Actually, I wonder if the OP was referring to Paolini's antics in Dublin 2 weeks ago???

No Pants

paddyland wrote: »

Cyclists in full yellow warrior outfit storming through traffic light junctions and pedestrian crossings at full pelt when everyone else is stopped for one thing.

Ignoring the "yellow warrior" comment, which is irrelevant, I assume that you're referring to traffic being stopped at a red light. In which case the cyclist should stop and no one here would disagree with that. However, if you mean the traffic is stopped due to congestion and the light is still green, then they're free to proceed.

paddyland wrote: »

Cyclists who race to get into a narrow bus lane in front of a bus, and then stop pedalling, is another thing.

Haven't seen this happen, but maybe it does. Cyclists can get tired.

paddyland wrote: »

Cyclists going far too fast on public park footpaths and forest trails, where there are pedestrians, children, slow cyclists and dogs about.

Agree with this one myself, although I tend to stay away from parks when on the bike so I don't see it. The Phoenix park is a bad example as most of the pedestrians are in the supposed cycle lane.

paddyland wrote: »

Cyclists who do not leave adequate space between themselves and pedestrian and other traffic, despite admonishing everyone else for not leaving them space.

Agreed.

paddyland wrote: »

Cyclists who practice militant hypocrisy, loudly remonstrating against anyone who they feel infringes on their divine right to cycle as they please, but rubbish anyone who suggests there might be occasions when they should consider others.

Don't know what you're referring to here, so I'll leave it for someone else.

paddyland wrote: »

Cyclists who travel in long lines and packs on busy country roads, leaving no possibility to safely overtake, and allowing long queues of traffic build up behind, until a hazardous situation develops where somebody does decide to overtake dangerously, and put everyone at risk. It is unfair, for example, to hold up traffic for miles on winding country roads such as the Roundwood road. Spread out, and let traffic pass when it is safe to do so. If you don't let them pass when it is safe, then someone will try to pass when it isn't safe.

I fail to see how this is the fault of the cyclist(s). If someone attempts an overtake and it is not safe, then it is their fault.

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. Cyclists are sometimes hard to see. Your speed should be in relation to your ability to be seen, and to avoid and be avoided.

Cyclists are not hard to see if you look. The problem you're describing here is people in the villages not paying attention to what they're doing and then wanting to blame someone else for their own lack of attention.

endacl

A red beard. Most likely a commie too.

No Pants

Just to turn this thread on its head; Cyclists why not?

SeanW

endacl wrote: »

Surely that's just common sense, no matter what sort of road you live on...?

I'm not sure what one way roads you are on, but only once in my entire lifetime have I seen a motorist driving the wrong way down a one way street. As a pedestrian, it is simply not something that I consider it necessary to be concerned with, nor something that I plan for or expect on a day to day basis.
Cyclists on the other hand ...

Spook_ie

ThisRegard wrote: »

The thing is, I would guess most cyclists do pay road tax.

Just because you have paid a tax to use ONE vehicle on a road does not give you the right to use a second vehicle based on having paid that tax.

Try running a second motor car on the road on the assumption that you've paid tax already on the car in the driveway and see how far it gets you in the excuse department.

Yes we have all agreed it's not road tax because it's called motor tax but you are still required to have the tax paid and displayed before you can even leave the vehicle on a public road for a year without so much as starting the motor, therefore it is a defacto road tax.