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

CramCycle

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been deleted.

the groutch

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

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

:rolleyes:

Danjamin1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spook_ie

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

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

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

This post has been deleted.

CramCycle

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

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

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

CramCycle wrote: »

How many have you had?

Just the one

Thargor

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

Tenzor07

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