Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

kenmm

SeanW wrote: »

Well we've literally seen demands from cyclists that motorists should be forced to get out of their cars at every junction to press a "beg button" to be considered for a green light. As to the number of cyclists who responded with anything like "whoa ... that's a little extreme, I'm out" well that number rhymes with "Nero". And that poster is just one in a long line of people with very extreme views.

Perfectly reasonable suggestion, I agree. No one disputed it, because when one cyclist speaks, they speak for ALL cyclists.

breezy1985

kenmm wrote: »

Perfectly reasonable suggestion, I agree. No one disputed it, because when one cyclist speaks, they speak for ALL cyclists.

”We are the cyclists.
Lower your windows and surrender your cars.
We will add your automotive and technological distinctiveness to our own.
Your roads will adapt to service us.
Resistance is futile.”

micar

SeanW wrote: »

As to my "generalisations" they are correct:

1) That cyclists have a problem with motorists far beyond anything reasonable.



2) That cyclists spend far too much time playing zoom-zoom on the footpath and forcing pedestrians to negotiate with them red lights.
That can be proven by being a pedestrian in Ireland's major cities for any length of time.

Have you any experience of being a cyclist.

More the most part, motorists behave very well. There are some who pose a real threat to cyclists and others who unintentionally pose a threat to cyclists.

That's where the John Snow clip comes in.......can we teach drivers to understand cycling even if they don't cycle?

The number of cyclists using footpaths is low compared to those who don't. And at that, the number who might cycle inappropriately on the footpath is even less.

You really need to take those blinkers off if you believe that's not the case.

Out running, walking the dogs, walking around town, etc etc etc I've dont ever recall coming across a "zoom zoom" cyclist on a footpath.

If I do see a cyclist coming towards me, I'll move over and give them plenty of space to go past.......certainly not stubborn enough to play chicken.

magicbastarder

SeanW wrote: »

As to my "generalisations" they are correct:
1) That cyclists have a problem with motorists far beyond anything reasonable.

true; i drove 30km today, crying with self loathing every single cursed kilometre of that journey.

Stark

I drove 250km today, had a serious self-persecution context. Had to detour off the M8 as part of it had been closed for several hours due to a serious collision. Must have been those cyclists at it again.

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Any regular cyclist would have a pretty good idea of their speed within a couple of km/h and their gearing would also give an indication. If I'm spinning out on a 50x11 I know that I'm doing 60km/h+. If I have to use a 34x28, I know I'm down around 6/7km/h.

Eh, no, just no

There are a multitude of variables which can alter ones perception of speed

• Wind direction & strength,
• gradient,
• clothing,
• weather,
• surface,
• energy levels,
• width of the route,
• closeness of other objects/people,
• other traffic
• etc, etc, etc

AndrewJRenko

Some great experiences with the 'objectively among the best drivers in the world' this morning - over the course of ten minutes I had four drivers with phones in their hands, and one watching video on a large tablet.

On Drummartin Road, this young guy passed me thumbing his phone at the bottom of the wheel.



When I caught up at the Goat, he had his phone on his lap (which is illegal) with a music player app showing.



Round the corner on Taney Road, two drivers filtered past me on the inside, as they turned up Birches Lane. Both had a phone in their hand.

AndrewJRenko

Along Upper Churchtown Road near the Bottle Tower, this black Audi with heavily tinted windows passed me with a large tablet, bigger than an iPad mounted from the dash, in front of the passenger seat. There was video playing on the tablet as they drove.



Down the road at Supervalu Churchtown, this lady passed me holding her phone at the bottom of the steering wheel.


So yeah, four in ten minutes, but no-one died this time, though mobile phone use is identified by the RSA as one of the major problems on the road. UK police have identified phone use as the direct cause of a substantial number of road deaths. I suspect that AGS investigations aren't quite so thorough on detecting this problem.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

over the course of ten minutes I had four drivers with phones in their hands, and one watching video on a large tablet.

Yeah but were you wearing a helmet cos dats wot keeps u ssafest!1!!!11!

TaurenDruid

I had to get the bus into work today. Several cyclists on the segregated cycle lane at North Strand, obviously unaware it's a total and utter death trap, but they all seemed to manage to avoid the spike pit, poison darts and chaos death murder machines that lurk awaiting cyclists who dare to use it! Walked from George's Street to the Green, and watched incredulous as - once again - I saw a cyclist approach me cycling the wrong way down one-way Stephen Street, using his phone, ignoring the car edging out from Drury Street and making both the car and me wait (he was not the fastest of cyclists!) Nice, polite, car driver didn't blast cyclist out of it, and waved me on to cross before entering the street.

The cyclist did have a mask on, so did not spread any Covid, even if he was oblivious to the dangers of cycling while using a phone and going the wrong way down a one-way street.

I don't have any photos that don't show what I claim I could see, unfortunately. I should be more prepared.

magicbastarder

that's a cool story.

kenmm

TaurenDruid wrote: »

I had to get the bus into work today. Several cyclists on the segregated cycle lane at North Strand, obviously unaware it's a total and utter death trap, but they all seemed to manage to avoid the spike pit, poison darts and chaos death murder machines that lurk awaiting cyclists who dare to use it! Walked from George's Street to the Green, and watched incredulous as - once again - I saw a cyclist approach me cycling the wrong way down one-way Stephen Street, using his phone, ignoring the car edging out from Drury Street and making both the car and me wait (he was not the fastest of cyclists!) Nice, polite, car driver didn't blast cyclist out of it, and waved me on to cross before entering the street.

The cyclist did have a mask on, so did not spread any Covid, even if he was oblivious to the dangers of cycling while using a phone and going the wrong way down a one-way street.

I don't have any photos that don't show what I claim I could see, unfortunately. I should be more prepared.

On behalf of all cyclists, I am truly sorry.

Tea drinker

magicbastarder wrote: »

that's a cool story.

You don't give a sh*te he was using the phone (cycling wrong way) or you think Tauren is lying?

magicbastarder

option C.

Tea drinker

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Some great experiences with the 'objectively among the best drivers in the world' this morning - over the course of ten minutes I had four drivers with phones in their hands, and one watching video on a large tablet.

On Drummartin Road, this young guy passed me thumbing his phone at the bottom of the wheel.



When I caught up at the Goat, he had his phone on his lap (which is illegal) with a music player app showing.

Fair play, that's unacceptable behaviour on the drivers parts.
I oft take that road past the goat, and it is just past that junction going down the hill, that the cyclist emerged (right hand side of the road) from his house to stop in the middle of the road, without properly checking it was safe to do so. A garbage truck was barrelling towards him in his lane, and appeared to have no intent to stop. If I hadn't stopped to let the cyclist pull across my lane to safety he would have been killed outside his own house.
He was doubly lucky I stopped as according to boards I'm very unobservant, and when I do observe things it's because I'm a racist bigot. :pac:

magicbastarder wrote: »

option C.

You think he is a ? :eek:
;-)

breezy1985

Tea drinker wrote: »

Fair play, that's unacceptable behaviour on the drivers parts.
I oft take that road past the goat, and it is just past that junction going down the hill, that the cyclist emerged (right hand side of the road) from his house to stop in the middle of the road, without properly checking it was safe to do so. A garbage truck was barrelling towards him in his lane, and appeared to have no intent to stop. If I hadn't stopped to let the cyclist pull across my lane to safety he would have been killed outside his own house.
He was doubly lucky I stopped as according to boards I'm very unobservant, and when I do observe things it's because I'm a racist bigot. :pac:


You think he is a ? :eek:
;-)

But if he pulled out into the the middle of the road then it his now his lane not the trucks so the truck is at fault for rear ending him. Replace cyclist with car and who would be at fault

magicbastarder

Tea drinker wrote: »

You think he is a ? :eek:
;-)

an anecdote about some cyclists using a cycle path which i've been arguing is badly designed, as if it refutes my opinion, does not get my heart racing.
and the cyclist was being an idiot.
fin.

Tea drinker

breezy1985 wrote: »

But if he pulled out into the the middle of the road then it his now his lane not the trucks so the truck is at fault for rear ending him. Replace cyclist with car and who would be at fault

No I am going to disagree, you don't understand -he pulled out in front of traffic. If a car pulled out into the middle of the road would you expect a cyclist to do a stoppie or cycle out of control into the the car "because the car has the lane" ? You (generic motorist / cyclist) cannot pull out and cause emergency breaking for any road user. but I fail to see why you are bringing in the "racist" issue of cyclist / motorist. It's a human who would have hurt, regardless of what mode of transport. In this case, he was a cycling, and did so without due care, as there was a truck bearing down. You can't just assume people will stop. I don't know what the garbage driver was doing, he was an idiot.

BTW on same road closer to o sheas have seen a cyclist tip a car that was pulled out in very good time into the yellow box to turn right. The car "had the lane" , but cyclist still performed a controlled hit on the car to show he was offended at it's presence. Ah sure that's people.

partyguinness

1. There is a dickhead I see every morning on my commute. Cycling on a mountain bike in his work clothes and with a rucksack on his back (not a lycra lout). What grates me is that (a) No helmet on and (b) He is wearing earphones and all on a busy road.

2. A dickhead ploughed into us one night on the footpath. It was pitch dark save for the street light, he was all in black, no helmet, no lights or any sort of reflective gear. He came to a grinding halt in front of us on the footpath and then half toppled over.

Myself and my buddy roughed him up a bit hurled abuse at him and physically pushed the wanker back down. He mumbled something in a foreign tongue. Polish if I was to hazard a guess and cycling back from work.

The wannabe Chris Froome lycra louts are fine. It's the dickheads above that are the danger to everyone else.

AndrewJRenko

Tea drinker wrote: »

BTW on same road closer to o sheas have seen a cyclist tip a car that was pulled out in very good time into the yellow box to turn right. The car "had the lane" , but cyclist still performed a controlled hit on the car to show he was offended at it's presence. Ah sure that's people.

You do know how yellow boxes are supposed to work?

magicbastarder

partyguinness wrote: »

1. There is a dickhead I see every morning on my commute. Cycling on a mountain bike in his work clothes and with a rucksack on his back (not a lycra lout). What grates me is that (a) No helmet on and (b) He is wearing earphones and all on a busy road.

helmets are not designed to help if you are hit by a car. they are designed to protect your head in a fall, not in a collision. the helmet manufacturers are clear on this.

a cyclist wearing earphones generally will hear more than a motorist listening to the radio.

breezy1985

Tea drinker wrote: »

No I am going to disagree, you don't understand -he pulled out in front of traffic. If a car pulled out into the middle of the road would you expect a cyclist to do a stoppie or cycle out of control into the the car "because the car has the lane" ? You (generic motorist / cyclist) cannot pull out and cause emergency breaking for any road user. but I fail to see why you are bringing in the "racist" issue of cyclist / motorist. It's a human who would have hurt, regardless of what mode of transport. In this case, he was a cycling, and did so without due care, as there was a truck bearing down. You can't just assume people will stop. I don't know what the garbage driver was doing, he was an idiot.

BTW on same road closer to o sheas have seen a cyclist tip a car that was pulled out in very good time into the yellow box to turn right. The car "had the lane" , but cyclist still performed a controlled hit on the car to show he was offended at it's presence. Ah sure that's people.

So you had to do an emergency stop for a bike that wasnt in your lane but the truck kept moving and would have hit the cyclist if you didnt stop. If the cyclist had time to pull out stop and start again to change lane into your lane then the truck wasnt really that close to him at all was he.

The whole physics of your story is BS

partyguinness

magicbastarder wrote: »

helmets are not designed to help if you are hit by a car. they are designed to protect your head in a fall, not in a collision. the helmet manufacturers are clear on this.

a cyclist wearing earphones generally will hear more than a motorist listening to the radio.

A car is not going to collide with the cyclist's head in the first instance that somewhat goes without saying and surely if you are then hit by a car then you will fall off and hit your head? I always took it that the helmet was to give some sort of protection for when you hit the ground as you mention.

I would have thought that a cyclist should be more mindful about their surroundings seeing as they are not incased in a 1 tonne metal box.

A cyclist is already greatly exposed to danger why make it worse for yourself.

AndrewJRenko

partyguinness wrote: »

1. There is a dickhead I see every morning on my commute. Cycling on a mountain bike in his work clothes and with a rucksack on his back (not a lycra lout). What grates me is that (a) No helmet on and (b) He is wearing earphones and all on a busy road..

Can we take that you wear a crash helmet in the car yourself at all times, given that far more head injuries happen in cars than on bikes? And you never play radio or music in the car?

Tea drinker

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You do know how yellow boxes are supposed to work?

No idea at all. Can you tell me your understanding, with particular attention to RIGHT turning traffic, if the exit is clear, and taking into account oncoming traffic?

AndrewJRenko

Tea drinker wrote: »

No idea at all. Can you tell me your understanding, with particular attention to RIGHT turning traffic, if the exit is clear, and taking into account oncoming traffic?

My understanding is that you don't enter a yellow box if that blocks traffic that would otherwise be free to proceed. Sounds he entered the yellow box and blocked the cyclist.

magicbastarder

partyguinness wrote: »

A car is not going to collide with the cyclist's head in the first instance

really?
if i am hit by a car, the notion that it will be a simple fall i will suffer is kinda weird.

anyway;
Bicycle Helmets Not Designed For Impacts From Cars, Stresses Leading Maker Giro
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/#1c379234cbd4

i *love* the attitude of 'if you're so exposed, why don't you do more to protect yourself'.
it's outsourcing the issue of dealing with the danger, from those creating the danger, to those exposed to it. and society has bought it hook, line and sinker.

if being able to hear clearly is crucial, why is it only cyclists who have the burden, that someone listening to loud music in a car isn't chastised in the same manner?

partyguinness

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can we take that you wear a crash helmet in the car yourself at all times, given that far more head injuries happen in cars than on bikes? And you never play radio or music in the car?

As I mention above, if I am going to share the road with hundreds of metal boxes flying past me at speed during the daily commute why would you not take the utmost precautions.

As for a radio, again I am encased in a metal box with an engine bay in front of me with a seat belt on, airbags and mirrors and a raft of safety features. If I was in a collision with a cyclist, I am pretty confident that myself and my head will fare a lot better than the cyclist.

One of the very very few safety features in the cyclists armour is a helmet so I cannot for the life of me fathom why you would not wear one.

I have no interest in turning this into a car v cyclist thing. I cycle myself and friends of mine are avid triathlons so I am very mindful of cyclists. It does seem that cyclists are very sensitive to any form of criticism.

breezy1985

partyguinness wrote: »

I have no interest in turning this into a car v cyclist thing. I cycle myself and friends of mine are avid triathlons so I am very mindful of cyclists. It does seem that cyclists are very sensitive to any form of criticism.

Really? but yet you were happy to post this:

"1. There is a dickhead I see every morning on my commute. Cycling on a mountain bike in his work clothes and with a rucksack on his back (not a lycra lout). What grates me is that (a) No helmet on and (b) He is wearing earphones and all on a busy road.

2. A dickhead ploughed into us one night on the footpath. It was pitch dark save for the street light, he was all in black, no helmet, no lights or any sort of reflective gear. He came to a grinding halt in front of us on the footpath and then half toppled over.

Myself and my buddy roughed him up a bit hurled abuse at him and physically pushed the wanker back down. He mumbled something in a foreign tongue. Polish if I was to hazard a guess and cycling back from work.

The wannabe Chris Froome lycra louts are fine. It's the dickheads above that are the danger to everyone else."

Lycra louts, wanker cyclists and beating people up after a near collision

Stark

partyguinness wrote: »

1. There is a dickhead I see every morning on my commute. Cycling on a mountain bike in his work clothes and with a rucksack on his back (not a lycra lout). What grates me is that (a) No helmet on and (b) He is wearing earphones and all on a busy road.

2. A dickhead ploughed into us one night on the footpath. It was pitch dark save for the street light, he was all in black, no helmet, no lights or any sort of reflective gear. He came to a grinding halt in front of us on the footpath and then half toppled over.

Myself and my buddy roughed him up a bit hurled abuse at him and physically pushed the wanker back down. He mumbled something in a foreign tongue. Polish if I was to hazard a guess and cycling back from work.

The wannabe Chris Froome lycra louts are fine. It's the dickheads above that are the danger to everyone else.

How the **** is not wearing a helmet a danger to anyone else?

I think if you took a look in the mirror, you'd see who the real dickhead of the story is.

Stories like the above show the hidden dangers of the victim blaming messaging around helmets/hi-viz etc. Dickheads see not wearing helmets/hi-viz as justification for assault and the like. "Yeah I'm a big man who goes around assaulting people but it's people who don't wear helmets who are a danger to others".