Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

AndrewJRenko

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I suggest you read even further. I outlined the law and outlined a case where someone was found guilty. I'm not repeating myself over and over again

Are you referring to the Mayo tractor case here? Did you work out what the tractor driver was charged with yet?

Hurrache

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes I do ignore posts on Twitter, as so many of them are actually from a non professional social media employee lumped into the position by some other non media savvy boss. Look at the standards from our own Garda

Brilliant, but expected. A commonality when people get too invested in stupid arguments is to ignore the professionals who contradict them. How are you getting on with your back up argument of hand signals and the associated incredible danger?

It's quite a joy knowing how irritated people on bikes make you when your sitting on the ranks. The sooner things get back to normal the better, mentally, for you. You'll spend less time here chasing your own tail, at least you'll have the opportunity to have a rant with a real person and get it out of your system.

magicbastarder

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

If you can safely cycle in a cycle Lane which leaves the road free, you should. Regardless of legality, it's basic manners.

Do you notice it's only cyclists that have an issue with what I'm saying? No drivers trying to justify their behavior, or pedestrians.

you'll find most cyclists are only delighted to use well designed cycle lanes which are not blocked by cars. that

(note: i said 'well designed' rather than 'safe' because 'well designed' should encompass safe, and more besides).

micar

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

If you can safely cycle in a cycle Lane which leaves the road free, you should. Regardless of legality, it's basic manners.

Basic manners ....

Same manners as expressed by motorists who

Park on footpaths
Park on double yellow lines
Park in loading bays
Park in disable spots
Park in family spots
Parking up 2 parking spots
Park in cycle lanes
Stop in yellow boxes blocking traffic
Double park

Should I keep going????

micar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwjL-cW6fGM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwT0YA2OXhU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z84E0VTilk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAQtk8IOS58

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw8PfOF6JKM

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4pkABK4hfM

magicbastarder

a chap i know is a garda, who about two years ago went out on his bike, and his wife took a photo of him before he left because she thought he looked ridiculous. hi vis cover on the helmet, hi vis jacket, hi vis gloves and hi vis overshoes.

about half an hour later he was knocked down; on a roundabout by a driver who didn't see him.

ewc78

micar wrote:

Park on footpaths Park on double yellow lines Park in loading bays Park in disable spots Park in family spots Parking up 2 parking spots Park in cycle lanes Stop in yellow boxes blocking traffic Double park

Someone has a servere case of the whatabouteries

ewc78

micar on a roll with his video clips...
There is literally thousands on YouTube of cyclists behaving badly, not sure anyone is sad enough to go compiling them all and posting them on here..
You need a degree in whataboutery to be that much of a saddo.

micar

ewc78 wrote: »

whatabouteries

How often have you used this phrase?

micar

ewc78 wrote: »

whataboutery.

There it is again

Roger the cabin boy

magicbastarder wrote: »

a chap i know is a garda, who about two years ago went out on his bike, and his wife took a photo of him before he left because she thought he looked ridiculous. hi vis cover on the helmet, hi vis jacket, hi vis gloves and hi vis overshoes.

about half an hour later he was knocked down; on a roundabout by a driver who didn't see him.

This is a great post

It's great because it highlights the one thing that most posters here on opposite sides of the argument ignore.

Context.

In this instance, nothing is foolproof and I suspect he wasn't seen simply because the driver wasn't looking.
No amount of visibility would have changed that and no amount of helmets or PPE would stop serious injury.

However, in general, being more visible is better than being less so. Having PPE in a crash is usually better than not.

You can have a bazillion studies, anecdotes, and what have you that can suggest otherwise but generally, the law of common sense will apply.

ewc78

Roger the cabin boy wrote:

In this instance, nothing is foolproof and I suspect he wasn't seen simply because the driver wasn't looking. No amount of visibility would have changed that and no amount of helmets or PPE would stop serious injury.

Ah but he felt the need to inform us this guy was a Guard, sure how could a Guard be in the wrong?
I've seen plenty of cyclists fly thru roundabouts expecting everyone to stop for them, but then again this fella was a Guard so we know it definitely couldn't have been his fault..
Did I mention this guy was a Guard?
He was.

magicbastarder

well done for concentrating on that one throwaway detail.

ewc78

Your Guard friend was lucky he didn't go for a run in the Cycle lane though, Renko would have cycled straight over him!

magicbastarder

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

In this instance, nothing is foolproof and I suspect he wasn't seen simply because the driver wasn't looking.

as i mentioned earlier, it's one of the reasons i do prefer bright clothes on the bike. not because i think it will make a difference, it's so i won't be the one blamed in a situation like the above.
in the situation above, the outcome would have been identical if he'd been dressed in black, but now it would have been his fault because he was dressed so; it gives the inattentive motorist a get out of jail free card.

regarding the driving not looking - probably, but you can also look without seeing. partly because many motorists when they look, are only looking for cars, sometimes it's down to the way eyesight works and you can be in their blind spot just at the very instant they glance your way.

beauf

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'm not so sure of that the first mention of hi viz is

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113608213&postcount=273 from BeardySi, unfortuneately Boards 503 errors is preventing me from seeing where he posts, so I can't confirm or deny if he is a motorist

The second mention is
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113625830&postcount=376 from Galwaytt again 503 errors prevent me from seeing his posting history but I gather he is a motorcyclist and has valid views on visibility of vulnerable road users.

The 3rd mention is
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113625930&postcount=379 from Magic who I know is a confirmed cycling fan and from there we know where it went

No one replied to the first one. So it doesn't count.

They did the 2nd because it was the usual rant. Hence it was what initiated the whole sorry mess about hi viz.

Duckjob

magicbastarder wrote: »

you'll find most cyclists are only delighted to use well designed cycle lanes which are not blocked by cars. that

(note: i said 'well designed' rather than 'safe' because 'well designed' should encompass safe, and more besides).

100%

If you spend anytime at all travelling around rural Netherlands, you'll find that there's lots of roads besides motorways where only cars are allowed and which have big no entry signs for bikes like this one:

https://www.signs-tdc.com/no-entry-on-a-bike-528.html

Do you see people on bikes in NL doggedly trying to force their way up these roads on their bikes ? No.

Why not ? Because anywhere you see one of these signs you can turn your head around from where you stand and you can be sure you will see a high quality facility that accommodates those on bikes and takes them in full safety and full convenience to where they want to go.

AndrewJRenko

ewc78 wrote: »

Your Guard friend was lucky he didn't go for a run in the Cycle lane though, Renko would have cycled straight over him!

And again that warm, fuzzy feeling to see the wide, open water between what I actually said and what you said I said.

beauf

ewc78 wrote: »

...
I've seen plenty of cyclists fly thru roundabouts expecting everyone to stop for them, . .

Driving or cycling. Irish roundabouts are mostly a game of chicken.

When I think about it over the last 30 yrs or so that style of driving or cycling has become normalised everywhere. Far less yielding giving way and far more drive or cycle at people to bully them out of your way. Maybe it's a reflection of modern society values.

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/motr/narcissism-is-a-driving-hazard-research-suggests.html

Duckjob

When I mentioned convenience in my last post, I thought of a perfect example that I just happened upon yesterday while planning a cycle route, coming from Swords direction towards Blanch/Clonsilla :

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4178946,-6.3617179,3a,75y,148.26h,94.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1shywDlqzu6VIX1cvUeDIo6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Corduff Rd in West Dublin, heading towards Clonsilla, has what looks like quite a like very nice separated bike path running alongside it. When I saw it, I thought it would be very nice to use that and be away from traffic.

But if you're travelling towards Blanch / Clonsilla, you get to the next roundabout and if you've taken the bike path you're faced with this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4166023,-6.3613352,3a,75y,209.52h,62.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAMEPyVmKhN60VFn-Dxy9ww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

..so you have to come to a stop, dismount, and cross a probably busy roundabout with no cross facility, no right of way, just scatter out of the way of the cars and trucks that are probably coming thru constantly. Basically you have to fight your way to get to the other side and continue down where you have more nice separated bike path.

Imagine trying to shepard your family and young kids in between the flowing traffic to the tiny little space not taken up by the median barrier.

No signal lights even. Just constant right of way for motorised traffic.

If you're serious about people cycling, stop thinking of them as fringe weirdos and start thinking of them as regular people who want to get from A to B safely.

Stop thinking of bike paths as an afterthought - something you stick in at the side of some roads because it looks/sounds good, and start thinking of integrating
proper joined-up infrastructure properly into the roads system, just like we already do for car traffic.

In terms of getting all ages out on bikes, a cycle route is only as good as its weakest link. If I have to travel to A to B with family, it's no use if 95% of the route is nice and safe, if 5% requires me to compromise my and/or my families safety then the entire route fails as a bike travel route.

ewc78

beauf wrote:

Driving or cycling. Irish roundabouts are mostly a game of chicken.When I think about it over the last 30 yrs or so that style of driving or cycling has become normalised everywhere. Far less yielding giving way and far more drive or cycle at people to bully them out of your way. Maybe it's a reflection of modern society values.

Agree with you completely.

beauf

In my immediate are there are about 10 roundabouts no exaggeration but everyone of them has a different design for cycle path to road connection. Often different on one side of the roundabout than the other. Most of them make no sense and are unusable.

Many deposit the cyclist on the path. It's an incoherent mess. Often where's there's an obvious destination like a school or a park there are zero cycle lanes.

We've been talking about this stuff on boards for a very long time and none of it is changing. Sorry it has improved slightly but the fundamentals, the dysfunction of the design and mindset of who creates these hasn't changed.

FinnC

I live in Portlaoise and the town is basically just one big roundabout. There is a combination of them just at the Catholic Church,coming down from the prison,and its just a mess they way it has been designed.

Pinch Flat

magicbastarder wrote: »

a chap i know is a garda, who about two years ago went out on his bike, and his wife took a photo of him before he left because she thought he looked ridiculous. hi vis cover on the helmet, hi vis jacket, hi vis gloves and hi vis overshoes.

about half an hour later he was knocked down; on a roundabout by a driver who didn't see him.

Been knocked off my bike twice when wearing hi vis and flashing lights back and front. I'm 1.9m tall and weigh about 105kg - not exactly a small item .
Both in broad day light. One was a left hook into a filling station. The other one the driver just basically pulled up behind me at a red light. Forced me into the kerb, me and bike went sprawling. Both times, drivers claimed to have not seen me.

Admittedly both happened when I started on the bike and I naively thought drivers would be driving and paying attention. Staying central and taking primary in similar situations has prevented a repeat of this.

AndrewJRenko

ewc78 wrote: »

micar on a roll with his video clips...
There is literally thousands on YouTube of cyclists behaving badly, not sure anyone is sad enough to go compiling them all and posting them on here..
You need a degree in whataboutery to be that much of a saddo.

This thread is worth a look. At a guess, I'd say videos of cyclist misbehaviour are about 1/10th or maybe 1/20th of the overall number of videos.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057975411

SeanW wrote: »

Cyclists aren't supposed to be on footpaths either, but guess what ...

that doesn't stop them.

You’re absolutely right. And what’s more, cyclists aren’t supposed to break red lights, but guess what, that doesn’t stop them. Cyclists aren’t supposed to use their phones while cycling, but guess what, that doesn’t stop them. Cyclists aren’t supposed to change lanes without looking, but guess what, that doesn’t stop them.
Just like motorists and pedestrians, cyclists break the law frequently. Unlike motorists, cyclists don’t kill a couple of people each week.
I just thought it might save some time. It’s not some great ‘gotcha’ in the debate to ‘prove’ that cyclists break the law. They do – that’s generally not disputed.

SeanW wrote: »

You spent the whole thread screeching "bUt MoToRiStS bReAk MuH sPeEd LiMiTs" in a thinly veiled attempt to deflect from cyclists and their profilgate lawbreaking. You may not have explicitly justified it, but did so much what-about-ery that it was basically the same thing.

Thanks for confirming that I didn’t justify cyclists cycling on footpaths.

SeanW wrote: »

I freely admit to having a "bias" against sanctimonious hypocrites. You got me there

It’s a bit more than that though. It’s not just about the terrible cyclists who keep presenting indisputable facts to you about the damage done by motorists in these discussions. Your posts here and elsewhere and your long track record, ten years banging this drum, show a degree of venom against cyclists simply for cycling. When put side by side with your ninja-level weaselling efforts to downplay lawbreaking by motorists with your ‘lawbreaking scum’ response to the cyclists who don’t kill 2 or 3 people each week on the road, it is rather telling.
It was also interesting how your line by line dissection of my post missed the bit where I shone a big light on this dichotomy, your treatment of lawbreaking cyclists vs your treatment of lawbreaking motorists. I was really looking forward to your take on that.
Let’s stop pretending this is anything to do with safety for you. It is just plain oul prejudice.

SeanW wrote: »

I'm fairly sure I referred to the majority of motorists as not being muppets. The majority of motorists do not drink and drive. The majority of motorists do not take the piss with speed. (I'm ignoring your 98% figure given the reasons outlined earlier). Fairly sure I accepted that some motorists are muppets.

Whether you accept the 98% or not, it doesn’t change the facts. It doesn’t change the long established trend shown by the RSA Speed Surveys over the last ten years or so, showing that the majority of motorists break speed limits. It doesn’t change the facts of the Liberty Insurance survey showing that the majority of motorists use the mobile phones while driving. It doesn’t change the facts of the Aviva insurance survey showing Irish motorists 2nd worst in Europe for checking social media while driving. It doesn’t change the Luas red light camera results showing that 88% of red light jumping in Dublin was done by motorists.
Lawbreaking by motorists is not a minority issue.

SeanW wrote: »

Where to start? :eek: Firstly, the smoking ban and road safety are entirely different problems. Secondly, I find it difficult to believe that nowhere in the world do people care about road safety? That's a really big claim!

Yes indeed, they are entirely different problems, with one thing in common. The problem didn’t get solved until we decided that we needed to solve them.
And yes, to claim that no-where in the world do people care about road safety would be a really big claim. It’s not my claim, just some words that you made up. There’s that wide open water again between what I actually said and what you had to twist it into to find something to complain about.

SeanW wrote: »

I've proven that your dumping on Irish motorists is unwarranted. As to the bolded statement, that is simply not true. You have provided no evidence for it, I have provided strong evidence against it.

Honestly, this is very strange , if not bizarre. You’re saying that it’s not possible to drive without killing people. Have you ever killed anyone while driving? I certainly haven’t. No-one in my family or circle of friends has killed anyone. But you’re saying it’s just not possible to drive without killing people?
Do you think you might have gone too far down the rabbit hole?

SeanW wrote: »

As to the percentage, I suspect the majority were unavoidable. I base that view on both Irish history and global context. I suspect that the vast majority of avoidable fatalities are actually being avoided. We have motorways to safely accommodate fast long distance traffic, and our culture no longer glorifies driving home from the pub after a bender. That's avoiding a lot of accidents collisions.

Again, really, really bizarre – your suggestion that the majority of road deaths were unavoidable. Are you suggesting that most of these were unavoidable deaths?;
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/coroner-s-court/young-mother-s-death-highlights-need-for-truck-driver-s-rest-says-coroner-1.3811394?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fcoroner-s-court%2Fyoung-mother-s-death-highlights-need-for-truck-driver-s-rest-says-coroner-1.3811394
https://www.thejournal.ie/truck-driver-pedestrian-case-4861467-Oct2019/
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/driver-jailed-for-eight-months-over-death-of-boy-in-hit-and-run-1.4113457?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fcircuit-court%2Fdriver-jailed-for-eight-months-over-death-of-boy-in-hit-and-run-1.4113457
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/hit-and-run-driver-jailed-for-20-months-after-fatal-naas-road-crash-1.4111178?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fcircuit-court%2Fhit-and-run-driver-jailed-for-20-months-after-fatal-naas-road-crash-1.4111178
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/1218/1101993-rosemarie-gallagher/
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/0420/1132628-accident-clare/
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/mother-weeps-after-truck-driver-whose-careless-driving-caused-death-of-toddler-is-fined-994998.html
https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1121/833379-susan-gleeson-court/
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/driver-of-car-in-fatal-athy-crash-sent-forward-for-trial-1.2607736?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fdistrict-court%2Fdriver-of-car-in-fatal-athy-crash-sent-forward-for-trial-1.2607736

SeanW wrote: »

As to specific incidents, the two relatives I referred to earlier, I suspect both of those cases were unavoidable, though naturally I can't be sure.

Can you point to any specific incidents in the public domain, or any specific set of circumstances that result in ‘unavoidable’ road deaths please?

SeanW wrote: »

Well, if 98% of drivers break urban speed limits and the majority of cyclists are also drivers, then it must follow that the majority of cyclists are also speeders. The bastards :rolleyes:

While there is no data to support this, and there is data to suggest that cyclists generally make better drivers than non-cyclists, you’re probably right in this claim.
To drill a little bit deeper, this debate isn’t about cyclists being angelic or better people or saving the planet or whatever. When those cyclists get into cars, they often have the same issues as non-cyclists I would guess. The debate is around stopping the carnage caused by motorists on our roads each week.

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you expect motorists to show consideration by using motorways where available and staying off local roads?

Umm .. that's exactly what motorists do when the motorway is not tolled. If you're doing a long distance journey and you have the choice between old, general purpose single carriageways going through towns or a nice, toll-free motorway, you'd need to have a really good reason not to use the motorway.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And again that warm, fuzzy feeling to see the wide, open water between what I actually said and what you said I said.

How could anyone misconstrue what you said? It seemed pretty clear.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Thanks for confirming that I didn’t justify cyclists cycling on footpaths.

Whataboutery. Same thing.

It’s a bit more than that though. It’s not just about the terrible cyclists who keep presenting indisputable facts to you about the damage done by motorists in these discussions. Your posts here and elsewhere and your long track record, ten years banging this drum, show a degree of venom against cyclists simply for cycling.

That is a lie. I don't despise anyone "just for cycling", I don't like hypocrites. In fact, I could live with lawbreaking cyclists, as a pedestrian you learn to "negotiate" with them an essential survival skill. Yes, on two occasions I was nearly killed or seriously hurt because of two-wheeled lawbreakers, but even that is a risk I can live with.

What gets my goat is when those self-same lawbreakers bash motorists for "lawbreaking", demand extreme measures be applied to motorists, large scale speed limit reductions because "motorists bad, speed bad, lawbreaking bad". You're just one of many. I'll be more than happy to take a lecture on obeying laws from cyclists when they start.

I'm not going to defend motorists who drive drunk, text behind the wheel or take the piss with speed, but if you and your kind insist that people "speeding" past cows and one-off houses at 55kph or go a few kph over on a dual carriageway is the great plague of our time (while menacing pedestrians off the footpaths) I'm going to have a problem with that.

Whether you accept the 98% or not, it doesn’t change the facts.

It's bull. You can put a 50kph speed sign in the middle of nowhere and then do a "survey" there and easily come up with such a figure. And I suspect that's exactly where this figure came from.

It doesn’t change the facts of the Liberty Insurance survey showing that the majority of motorists use the mobile phones while driving. It doesn’t change the facts of the Aviva insurance survey showing Irish motorists 2nd worst in Europe for checking social media while driving.

Where did I defend this behaviour? I have no issue with a motorist who takes the piss being punished. Please show where I stated otherwise.

It doesn’t change the Luas red light camera results showing that 88% of red light jumping in Dublin was done by motorists.

1. I suspect there are motorists than cyclists at this junction. What are the proportions of RLJ'ing motorists to total motorists? RLJ'ing cyclists to total cyclists?
2. Most red light jumping by motorists is "amber gambling" or people who dart though on the first few seconds of the red cycle. I know this because I saw it every day a daily pedestrian in Dublin. The only motorists I've seen disregarding red lights they arrived at are taxi drivers.

Honestly, this is very strange , if not bizarre. You’re saying that it’s not possible to drive without killing people. Have you ever killed anyone while driving? I certainly haven’t. No-one in my family or circle of friends has killed anyone. But you’re saying it’s just not possible to drive without killing people?
Do you think you might have gone too far down the rabbit hole?

"Motorists kill people" is your loaded term for road fatalities. By your terminology, the two relatives I referred to earlier are incidents of "motorists killing people" even though both cases were single vehicle collisions.

And no, it's not possible to have zero fatal incidents. All that can be done is minimise them, and Ireland is doing well there.

Even the best driver will make mistakes, because humans are imperfect and will make a genuine mistake from time to time. Road profile can contribute to an accident. Some people will use their vehicles to commit suicide, concluding that crashing into a tree at 100MPH will solve all their problems. Even the best driver can encounter something serious and unexpected. Even the best driver in the best maintained car can encounter a freak loss of control (I know because it happened to me once). And all sorts of interactions between lots of different road users can contribute something even if everyone involved is doing their best.

Again, really, really bizarre – your suggestion that the majority of road deaths were unavoidable. Are you suggesting that most of these were unavoidable deaths?;

I'm suggesting that a lot of avoidable accidents are in fact being avoided. Motorways handle lots of safe, fast, long distance traffic. We don't drive home from the pub after a bender like our ancestors did back in the day. It's not stopping vehicular suicides, some muppetry and some bad luck.

Basic logic suggests that when you avoid the avoidable, you are increasingly left with the unavoidable. And to a large extent, that's what Ireland is doing. That's why today's Irish road safety statistics compare well with both Irish history and international context. It suggests that we as a people are doing something right.

beauf

Pure torture to read those monoliths of text. So I don't.

The whole reason this comes up is people imply cycling is dangerous but have no stats to back it up. So comparisons with what is actually dangerous are inevitable.

Doesnt require war and peace to make that point.

Spook_ie

Hurrache wrote: »

Brilliant, but expected. A commonality when people get too invested in stupid arguments is to ignore the professionals who contradict them. How are you getting on with your back up argument of hand signals and the associated incredible danger?

It's quite a joy knowing how irritated people on bikes make you when your sitting on the ranks. The sooner things get back to normal the better, mentally, for you. You'll spend less time here chasing your own tail, at least you'll have the opportunity to have a rant with a real person and get it out of your system.

The only thing that irritates me is people who seem to have an idea that they actually know me, like yourself.

Once again, I will ask you to have some respect, I respect your right to post contradictions to my opinion, now try having the same respect of posting without recourse to mentioning my supposed mental state or how cyclists must irritate me in my daily life.

Or maybe it's actually you that has a problem?

Spook_ie

beauf wrote: »

No one replied to the first one. So it doesn't count.

They did the 2nd because it was the usual rant. Hence it was what initiated the whole sorry mess about hi viz.

Yeah but as a motorcyclist does he not have the right to his own opinion on using Hi Viz without the usual suspects trolling him, and thereafter trying to troll myself because I dared to mention that Day Glow actually works better on a bright day.

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

Until such time as error 503 doesn't keep appearing when I'm searching yeah, but I'm not so sure I said that at all. Maybe you can link me to where I said it so I can check its context.

@Andrew ( digging oil wells ) JRenko
Did you ever go back and find out which post it was that you reckon I said Hi Viz on cars was a good idea, I'm still getting 503 errors