Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 48083
we understand now; cyclists are like humour. you can't see cyclists unless they wear hi vis proclaiming their presence, and you can't see humour unless it is also announced to you.Oh it was humour was it, funny my usual humour would at least attach a smiley to it
(hope i did that right)0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Some motorists do, and some don’t. Let’s take Leopardstown/Sandyford area to Tallaght/Knocklyon area – there are still a lot of motorists on the old non-motorway roads. Can cyclists expect these motorists to ‘show consideration’ and stick to the motorway leaving the local roads safer for cyclists instead?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.
I know, it’s mad isn’t it – and yet you’ve done it twice today and yesterday, as have other posters, even though it was pretty clear what I said. I can only imagine it is their desperation to score points in the way of factual argument backed up by plenty of statistics. The only way you/they can score points is to twist what I said into something else and argue against the twisted version. I think it is called strawmanning.How could anyone misconstrue what you said? It seemed pretty clear.
Except it’s not the same thing. It is a different thing. I didn’t justify cyclists cycling on footpaths.Whataboutery. Same thing.
It really doesn’t smell like that, with your ‘law-breaking scum’ comment. It seems a bit deeper than that. But if that’s what it is, it’s a bit of a ‘cyclist, know your place’ approach. We don’t want cyclists getting above their station, or getting any notions about expecting to get home alive and unscathed to their families each night. They should keep tugging their forelocks to the nice motorists and be grateful every time they get passed without being murdered.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.
Funnily enough, I didn't say anything about speed limit reductions, just about enforcement of existing limits. But I guess when you have enjoyed the privilege of ignoring the law for ever, any suggestions of complying with the law can seem like a bit of an attack.
You should really turn your own logic back on motorists. I’ll be more than happy to take a lecture on obeying laws from motorists when they start not killing 2 or 3 people each week.
And the next time you're almost killed by a cyclist, you should rush to this hospital.
I hear from posts on boards that they're mad busy dealing with cases of people who are almost killed by cyclists.
You don’t need to ‘suspect’ anything about the figure. The research methodology is set out in the research report – all clear, open and transparent.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.
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.
That’s not how speed limits work. We don’t get to have opinions on their validity or otherwise. They are legal speed limits, and the vast majority of motorists break them, while going on to whinge about cyclists and red lights.
You’ve gone to extensive efforts to defend and downplay speeding motorists. You’ve made a career of it. It’s your thing to defend those who break the law on speed limits, while making false allegations that I justified cyclists who cycle on the pavement.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.
You are undoubtedly right about the there being more motorists than cyclists at this junction. But so what? What’s the relevance of the proportions of RLJing motorists? This isn’t some kind of purity pi$$ing contest to see who gets the gold star? This is about risk and danger on the road. The stat shows that the vast majority of red light jumping is by motorists. In case you haven’t noticed, the risk arising from red light jumping from a 1-3 tonne vehicle is a bit more significant from the risk arising from a 10-20kg bike.- 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?
- 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.
And can I take you never see this kind of very late red light jumping?
https://twitter.com/AlanDub13/status/1268603780548964354
Does it really matter whether it is single vehicle or otherwise? It is still motorists killing people, themselves or others."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.
No-one said it is possible to have zero fatal incidents, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t target some serious improvement. Imagine if we got from >150 to 100 each year, or maybe even 50 each year. Is that not worth the mild inconvenience of having to actually stick to speed limits?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.
Yes, everyone can make mistakes, which is why we need to build margin for error into our driving, not be driving at the absolute limit of ability so that those mistakes have fatal consequences. And yes, suicide is very serious problem, so maybe we need to provide proper mental health supports, or maybe we need to take the keys away from suicidal people, to avoid situations like this;
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/elber-twomey-i-forgive-the-man-who-killed-my-family-285482.html
You’ve put out a lot of theoretical situations there, but you still haven’t identified any specific unavoidable deaths. Surely if the majority of current deaths are avoidable, you’ll have no difficulties in pointing out a few examples of these?
Basic logic doesn’t get you anywhere near your suggestion that 150+ road deaths each year are largely unavoidable. Some examples of specific, recent, avoidable road deaths would be a good start for you.I'm suggesting that a lot of avoidable accidents collisions 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.
But not on cars, apparently.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.
Normally, I charge €50 per hour to do research for people, but I’ll do a ‘first hour free’ special for you. Here’s the post where you agreed that hi-vis on cars would help visibility in dark environments.@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
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113644399&postcount=463
The utter bustards. There’s you, trying to pretend that you’re interested in road safety while taking a sly kick and cyclists, and they keep coming out and pointing out factual truths that expose the fact that you’re really not that interested in safety at all.But the whole thread did turn into a cars do this cars do that cars on footpaths, cars in cycle lanes cars in everything whataboutery, so isn't the issue then more so certain cyclists posting the same dogma in every thread they get involved in?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement