Cycling body objects to new stamp design--Is this for real?

2RockMountain

SeanW wrote: »

All hazards are expected to have some kind of visibility marking ....

In short, almost everyone accepts and understands the need for road users to be visible. If you do not understand the need to be visible, get off the road because you are going to cause an accident.

Is there any chance that we could stick to the facts here? We're not in Amish country now.

A - Road users are not 'hazards' - they are road users, or traffic or people, take your pick.
B - Road users are not expected to have 'some kind of visibility marking'. When I go out on my bike in daylight hours, the only visibility marking I need is me. When I go out in my car in daylight, the only visibility marking I need is my car. Other road users are expected to use their eyes and their brains to see me. THat's the law.

PS they are 'crashes' - not 'accidents'.

SeanW wrote: »

Secondly as to the point, most motorists will try to expect what dangers they may forsee, but the unusual may be "the unexpected" because ALL people - which by definition includes motorists - have mental blind spots. To recognise something, a person must both visually see and then mentally percieve something in order to do anything about it. And all people, every day, miss things because they see, but do not percieve things, usually but not always because the missed things are unimportant. Again, this happens to all people, in all contexts, every day.

While this should not dissuade anyone from doing anything, including cycling down some rural road at midnight where no-one expects cyclists, it does mean that you should pay extra attention to visibility so that even a motorist not expecting you can see that "something is up".

If you are not capable of understanding this, again, get off the road before you cause an accident.

That's a very interesting pile of pseudo-psychology or pseudo-neurology to shift blame from cyclists to drivers. It's a pile of crap basically. Anyone who drives on the assumption that 'sure, there are no cyclists on this road at night' is a dangerous driver, but it is fascinating to see the lengths you go to to absolve them of any responsibility for their actions.

PS they are 'crashes' - not 'accidents'.

SeanW wrote: »

This is a fundamental misrepresentation of what I said. To make this absolutely clear:

1. The road in question did have footpaths and cycle lanes, but the illegally parking motorists were blocking the cycle lanes.
2. AT NO TIME DID I SUGGEST EXCLUDING ANYONE. You'll note I summarised with "widen the road to provide legal parking" not "replace the cycle lanes with legal parking. Again, let's be clear: I suggested a solution that included everyone.
3. The only people who were suggesting that any group be excluded were the cyclists.

And yes, I knew exactly how my post was going to be responded to, both in that thread and my reference to it here, because of my experience dealing with cyclists.

Read the exchange for yourself: this thread starting at post 99 (well, the poster I was replying to was a few posts further back, obviously). http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=88527444

It appears that you don't get the difference between my suggestion 'decent segregated cycle lane' and your suggestions. A decent segregated cycle lane would prevent parking on that cycle lane using a good-sized kerb or bollards or both. Mummy and Daddy might have to park at the local shops or church and walk that final five minutes, instead of driving into the classroom and pushing the kids out without actually stopping.

Dreadful eh? We are the cyclists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y

BuffyBot

As this has long veered off stamps and turned into another cyclists v motorists re-hash, which we don't need.

monument

I've deleted a post and another which quotes it until an admin look at it.

I'm also locking this thread as it's going a bit too off topic and it's too much to redirect it back on topic on a bank holiday.