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
12324262829125

Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,136 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    cheers, didn't spot that.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 480 ✭✭ewc78


    The point of the post was that they're not supposed to be there. Mandatory cycle lane, meaning it is not for them to be in. And that's the point. Any time so etching is point in place, something else comes along to use it it in a manner it's not intended for. Sometimes this has unintended benefits, but with cycle lanes it's generally the opposite

    Do you know what, I'm actually going to agree with you about the Phoenix Park. I was up there during the week and there is absolutely no need for anyone to run in the new cycle lane.
    There are plenty of paths to run on in that Park.
    Still don't think it should have stopped you using them though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,846 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    SeanW wrote: »
    You should have taken your cue from Andrew J. Gotti here and just cycled straight towards them. Pedestrians in Dublin are well used to jumping out of the way of aggressive cyclists.
    There's that reassuring clear open water again between what I actually said and what you try and twist it into, combined with your personal vendetta against cyclists, all in two short sentences.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,792 ✭✭✭SeanW


    If you want lanes for comfort jogging, maybe you should get out and lobby for about 50 years and get a few crumbs dropped from the big table. If you run against me in a bike lane,, you'll be moving out of my way, unless you are doing so to give room to a pedestrian.
    What was there here to miscronstrue? You were very clear!
    No-one said it is possible to have zero fatal incidents
    Except ...
    Zebra3 wrote: »
    What should be the target of road deaths is zero.

    How can any society find it acceptable that people die in such a horrific way?
    Clearly looking for a mythical zero standard. And guess who thanked that post? So clearly you agree with a standard of zero road fatalities. Which you haven't proven is even possible, let alone reasonable or feasible. And which I've shown is not.

    Is there anything else that you said that you say you didn't say, even though it's all there in black and white?


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,846 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    SeanW wrote: »
    What was there here to miscronstrue? You were very clear!

    I know, right? What was there to misconstrue? And yet, you've done just that - twice! So let's recap;

    What I said was; "you'll be moving out of my way". What you said was; "just cycled straight towards them" - which is a different thing all together.
    SeanW wrote: »
    Except ...
    Clearly looking for a mythical zero standard. And guess who thanked that post? So clearly you agree with a standard of zero road fatalities. Which you haven't proven is even possible, let alone reasonable or feasible. And which I've shown is not.

    Is there anything else that you said that you say you didn't say, even though it's all there in black and white?
    Again, you don't seem to be very good at details. There is a difference between setting a target and saying something is possible. There is also a difference between me writing a post and me thanking a post.

    But more importantly, if you put half the energy that you put into nitpicking into actually thinking about this issues, we'd all be in a much better place.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,846 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    But let's get back to the issue of obstructions on pavements;

    Brewery Road, again with lots of elderly people;

    515571.png

    Staff and presumably customer of ICE Ranelagh blocking path and bike lane for a grand oul chat;
    515572.png

    The Enchanted Florist, Milltown, delivery van and builder blocking access from both sides;
    515573.png

    Probably customer of Wilde and Green Milltown couldn't be arsed using car park across the road;
    515574.png

    An Post courier van, off Lr Churchtown Road, making sure he couldn't possibly delay drivers on the road, so he takes half the path instead,
    515575.png


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Err, yes, it would. That's why it's really important for the majority of drivers that use their phones while driving to put them away. That's what I meant when I mentioned 'the real issues'.

    Oh you mean I should vary the game a bit and start seeing if they can spot drivers on phones etc. rather than just cyclists. Difficult to implement given the lack of visibility as to what people are doing in their cars when behind them, usually obscured by headrests etc. but sure I'll give them a choice of games to play.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,846 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Oh you mean I should vary the game a bit and start seeing if they can spot drivers on phones etc. rather than just cyclists. Difficult to implement given the lack of visibility as to what people are doing in their cars when behind them, usually obscured by headrests etc. but sure I'll give them a choice of games to play.
    That might be why cyclists are much more aware of this issue - the elevated position makes is very easy to see the number of drivers with phones in their hands. When stopped beside them at traffic lights, you can often see what app they are using (which is often WhatsApp funnily enough), though Snapchat gets a good look in too, with the occasional Netfix and Facetime users too.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,044 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    The elevated position of cyclists means it's really visible when they're on their phones, too. A surprisingly common phenomenon, even among the ones who aren't deliveroo or justeat delivery guys.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,846 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    But can we get back on the topic of obstructions on pavements please?

    Beaumont Ave x 2 - Range Rover is becoming a permanent feature there, and one van or other is often at that spot opposite the shops (the shops with parking outside, btw).

    515583.png

    515584.png

    Grange Road, with the amost completely empty car park visible in the background.

    515585.png

    Ballinteer Ave - builder's van again becoming a permanent feature there, and the Ford just can't resist putting one wheel on the pavement to make sure any motorists aren't slightly inconvenienced;

    515586.png


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,136 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    AJR has the *worst* holiday photo album i've ever seen.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    I omitted burgandy because it is an 'or' relationship - black or navy or burgandy - so removing any one doesn't change the validity of the other two. Now back to the issue - isn't nightime a black or blue environment?

    Ah so you want to give me that fuzzy warm feeling of yours that you say you get when people change the meaning/context of your posts, I don't get that warm fuzzy feeling just a sense of sorrow at your desperation to make a point of something I didn't actually say.

    Who mentioned side? The reflective stripes would be on the boot as well. That would definitely improve the visibility of parked cars at night (that blue or black environment you mentioned earlier), right?

    You mean in addition to the standard reflectors as fitted to car bumpers and integrated into rear light clusters not to mention the reflective number plate
    rear-reflectors.jpg.webp


    Are you saying that you have difficulty seeing pedestrians crossing the road in daylight?
    No I said that daylight is better than headlights at night time, do you not think you see more clearly in daylight?
    And yet, you did.
    Yet you want me to repeat the answer in your own post, go on then just for you
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Because a parked car isn't moving and already has the major PPE ( lights, reflectors etc. ) built in.

    It doesn't really make sense to change timetables for a temporary scenario. Yes, I did seem the parked on the footpath and bike lane outside Lidl Rathfarnham a couple of times, reducing the space available for social distancing.
    Ah but you were so busy cycling off to photograph builders vans you didn't get to photograph any of these buses parked on the footpath. As to changing the timetable, surely if there are that many excess buses you just start back on the return jouney and be either an early bus or a later bus but probably by on 10 mins or so either way


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    cheers, didn't spot that.

    Hope you spot more when you're on the roads than you do on Boards :D


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 480 ✭✭ewc78


    AJR has the *worst* holiday photo album i've ever seen.


    That Ford Kuga is lovely, I've one in Grey.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,846 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    AJR has the *worst* holiday photo album i've ever seen.
    That's not as far off the truth as I'd like.

    The elevated position of cyclists means it's really visible when they're on their phones, too. A surprisingly common phenomenon, even among the ones who aren't deliveroo or justeat delivery guys.

    Really not that common in my experience. I have seen it, and I have cringed, because I know if I tried it, I'd end up with a smashed phone. The Deliveroo guys often have the phone mounted on the bars or in a harness on their arm.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Ah so you want to give me that fuzzy warm feeling of yours that you say you get when people change the meaning/context of your posts, I don't get that warm fuzzy feeling just a sense of sorrow at your desperation to make a point of something I didn't actually say.
    Except I didn't change anything in your post. I omitted one of the three colour options that you listed, as I didn't really know what you meant by a burgundy environment. Feel free to explain if you like. That doesn't change anything about what you said about reflective strips providing more visibility in black or blue environments (like nighttime).

    Strange how you seem to be backing away from that now.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    You mean in addition to the standard reflectors as fitted to car bumpers and integrated into rear light clusters not to mention the reflective number plate



    No I said that daylight is better than headlights at night time, do you not think you see more clearly in daylight?

    Ah but you were so busy cycling off to photograph builders vans you didn't get to photograph any of these buses parked on the footpath. As to changing the timetable, surely if there are that many excess buses you just start back on the return jouney and be either an early bus or a later bus but probably by on 10 mins or so either way

    Yes, rear reflectors in addition to those standard ones, as used by the Gardai and other emergency vehicles.

    cq5dam-web-1280-1280-7.jpeg

    Surely you'd agree that this would improve visibility for more people. Imagine if you had crashed on a dark road or motorway resulting in your lights not working. Surely this would give approaching traffic more of a chance to see you and stop before they crashed into you? I really don't know why drivers won't take responsibility for their own safety.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    No I said that daylight is better than headlights at night time, do you not think you see more clearly in daylight?
    Yes, very much better in daylight. So do you need pedestrians to wear hi-vis in daylight to prevent you from hitting them if they cross the road?
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Ah but you were so busy cycling off to photograph builders vans you didn't get to photograph any of these buses parked on the footpath. As to changing the timetable, surely if there are that many excess buses you just start back on the return jouney and be either an early bus or a later bus but probably by on 10 mins or so either way
    Didn't keep the video footage at the time. In fairness, it was in the early weeks of the lockdown, so maybe it took them a little while to work out their procedures.

    I really don't know much about managing bus timetables, so I'll stay schtum on that one. I know, that's an unusual approach around here.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 7,889 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    But can we get back on the topic of obstructions on pavements please?

    I don't see anybody cycling on pavements in those photo's. I think you are looking for this thread Your own pictures of bad parking - NO CHAT 24h ban


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,044 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    Really not that common in my experience. I have seen it, and I have cringed, because I know if I tried it, I'd end up with a smashed phone. The Deliveroo guys often have the phone mounted on the bars or in a harness on their arm.

    Really very common, actually. Easy to see, as a pedestrian or from the bus. Having the phone mounted on the bars or in an armband is still using a phone while riding. Worse still, obviously, is the cyclists using a phone while cycling on the footpath...


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Really very common, actually. Easy to see, as a pedestrian or from the bus. Having the phone mounted on the bars or in an armband is still using a phone while riding. Worse still, obviously, is the cyclists using a phone while cycling on the footpath...


    Though not advised, it isn't ( unlike drivers ) illegal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    That's not as far off the truth as I'd like.
    Not mine to respond to
    Really not that common in my experience. I have seen it, and I have cringed, because I know if I tried it, I'd end up with a smashed phone. The Deliveroo guys often have the phone mounted on the bars or in a harness on their arm.
    Not mine to respond to

    Except I didn't change anything in your post. I omitted one of the three colour options that you listed, as I didn't really know what you meant by a burgundy environment. Feel free to explain if you like. That doesn't change anything about what you said about reflective strips providing more visibility in black or blue environments (like nighttime).


    Strange how you seem to be backing away from that now.
    If i had meant nighttime I would have said night time, you deciding to remove wording for selective quotes doesn't change that fact
    Yes, rear reflectors in addition to those standard ones, as used by the Gardai and other emergency vehicles.

    cq5dam-web-1280-1280-7.jpeg

    Surely you'd agree that this would improve visibility for more people. Imagine if you had crashed on a dark road or motorway resulting in your lights not working. Surely this would give approaching traffic more of a chance to see you and stop before they crashed into you? I really don't know why drivers won't take responsibility for their own safety.

    Do you actually read replies that you are given
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Keep digging, its only you making a fool of yourself. If i thought that wrapping my car in hi viz would be useful I would but given the status of size, permanently available lights, reflectors and reflective surfaces, all of which make the car more visible than a cyclist or pedestrian under (pretty much) all conditions i think not.
    Now if i were to be parking the car in hazerdous positions like doing road side checks (Garda), Highway repairs (Council vehicles) or Breakdowns (AA and other services ) id give the idea of Hi Viz tape etc. more merit on a vehicle.


    Yes, very much better in daylight. So do you need pedestrians to wear hi-vis in daylight to prevent you from hitting them if they cross the road?

    I would prefer all vulnerable road users to be wearing bright day glow colors during daylight hours, I see nothing wrong with that thought seeing as conditions can change in short spans of time from sunny to overcast to rainy, during each of which a pedestrians visibility would be enhanced by day glow or very bright colors
    Didn't keep the video footage at the time. In fairness, it was in the early weeks of the lockdown, so maybe it took them a little while to work out their procedures.

    I really don't know much about managing bus timetables, so I'll stay schtum on that one. I know, that's an unusual approach around here.

    How convenient to not think about those huge double decker buses being parked on the footpath, imagine how many people were nearly killed by their actions, absolutely shocking behaviour by DB and you should have reported it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 28,846 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    liamog wrote: »
    I don't see anybody cycling on pavements in those photo's.
    I know, right. It's almost as if the frequency and impact of cycling on pavements isn't as high as some people would have you believe.
    Really very common, actually. Easy to see, as a pedestrian or from the bus. Having the phone mounted on the bars or in an armband is still using a phone while riding. Worse still, obviously, is the cyclists using a phone while cycling on the footpath...
    There's no visibility issues when on a bike, so if it was happening a lot, I'd be seeing it. Having a phone mounted on the bars or in the armband isn't using the phone, just like having a phone mounted on the dashboard isn't using the phone, once they're not watching Netflix on it or similar, as I've seen a few drivers doing in the past year or so.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    If i had meant nighttime I would have said night time, you deciding to remove wording for selective quotes doesn't change that fact
    Whether you meant night time or not, you said 'black or blue or burgundy environments'. Night time is generally a black or blue environment, so it fits what you said, whether you had the foresight to realise it at the time or not.

    But what did you mean by 'black or blue or burgundy environments'?
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Do you actually read replies that you are given
    Yeah, I read that reply, but it's really a different scenario. That refers to Garda cars. I was referring to your car, which could find itself on a road at night with no lights in a number of different situations. Surely given that said yourself that hi-vis stripes would improve visibility in black or blue environments, it's hard to see why you haven't fitted hi-vis stripes to your car. I'm really not convinced by your commitment to hi-vis at all.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    I would prefer all vulnerable road users to be wearing bright day glow colors during daylight hours, I see nothing wrong with that thought seeing as conditions can change in short spans of time from sunny to overcast to rainy, during each of which a pedestrians visibility would be enhanced by day glow or very bright colors
    This is fascinating. So everyone should, according to you, everytime they leave their house, be wearing bright day glow colours at all time, so that drivers don't have to be bothered with looking properly. I presume you live this principle yourself, and everytime you leave the house, even when walking to the car, you wear the oul dayglo to show consideration to other drivers right?

    No? Ah here, you're not really into 'walking the talk' on this hi-vis thing, are you?
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    How convenient to not think about those huge double decker buses being parked on the footpath, imagine how many people were nearly killed by their actions, absolutely shocking behaviour by DB and you should have reported it.
    Why would you assume that I didn't report it?

    But seriously, do you think it's OK for buses to be blocking paths and bike lanes at the time that they've never been needed more? Why can't he just wait on the road?
    ewc78 wrote: »
    That Ford Kuga is lovely, I've one in Grey.


    That's the one they target at the yummy-mummies, right, so they can pretend they're exploring wild territories when they drive to the park to do their bootcamp, right? :D:D:D:D
    https://vimeo.com/220458259

    How Kuga are you, me arse! If you were really Kuga, you'd be running or cycling to the park for your bookcamp, missus.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,044 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    There's no visibility issues when on a bike, so if it was happening a lot, I'd be seeing it. Having a phone mounted on the bars or in the armband isn't using the phone, just like having a phone mounted on the dashboard isn't using the phone, once they're not watching Netflix on it or similar, as I've seen a few drivers doing in the past year or so.

    Well, I'm seeing it, but as you've proved time and time again on this and other threads, in your opinion cyclists' sins are minor and forgivable if they even ever happen, but motorists are the devil.

    I'm not talking about unused phones on a dash or in an armband, I'm talking about cyclists actively using the phone, either talking or texting, while cycling.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,136 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder




  • Registered Users Posts: 28,846 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Well, I'm seeing it, but as you've proved time and time again on this and other threads, in your opinion cyclists' sins are minor and forgivable if they even ever happen, but motorists are the devil.

    I'm not talking about unused phones on a dash or in an armband, I'm talking about cyclists actively using the phone, either talking or texting, while cycling.

    I've seen it happen all right, but not very often, certainly by comparison to the frequency of motorists using phones.

    It's not so much that motorists are devils, it's just that they keep killing people with alarming regularity.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    I know, right. It's almost as if the frequency and impact of cycling on pavements isn't as high as some people would have you believe.


    There's no visibility issues when on a bike, so if it was happening a lot, I'd be seeing it. Having a phone mounted on the bars or in the armband isn't using the phone, just like having a phone mounted on the dashboard isn't using the phone, once they're not watching Netflix on it or similar, as I've seen a few drivers doing in the past year or so.


    Whether you meant night time or not, you said 'black or blue or burgundy environments'. Night time is generally a black or blue environment, so it fits what you said, whether you had the foresight to realise it at the time or not.

    But what did you mean by 'black or blue or burgundy environments'?

    A burgundy environment can you see the burgundy coloured car?
    piqsels-com-id-fymdw.jpg
    Would you like me to post an image of a blue environment?

    Yeah, I read that reply, but it's really a different scenario. That refers to Garda cars. I was referring to your car, which could find itself on a road at night with no lights in a number of different situations. Surely given that said yourself that hi-vis stripes would improve visibility in black or blue environments, it's hard to see why you haven't fitted hi-vis stripes to your car. I'm really not convinced by your commitment to hi-vis at all.
    Let me think about this, hmmm, how many times in over 45 years of motoring have I been on the side of a road with no lights at night for any reason. Oh I just realised never, how many times have you been stuck with no lights?
    Anyways, I don't think emblazoning all cars with HI viz Garda style markings is actually going to do any favours to Garda already working in a stressed environment, or to any of the service agencies that rely on people picking them out from the crowd on a busy road.
    This is fascinating. So everyone should, according to you, everytime they leave their house, be wearing bright day glow colours at all time, so that drivers don't have to be bothered with looking properly. I presume you live this principle yourself, and everytime you leave the house, even when walking to the car, you wear the oul dayglo to show consideration to other drivers right?

    Nah for the short walk from my house to the car on the driveway I figure if I'm going to be hit by a car there they would have missed seeing the wall as well, however, I do use HI viz if for any reason I'm ( for instance ) changing a tyre unless I'm on a particularly busy stretch of road of motorway when I'll call out the AA to do it for me. After all they have lovely HI viz and flashing Amber beacons just for that reason.

    No? Ah here, you're not really into 'walking the talk' on this hi-vis thing, are you?


    Why would you assume that I didn't report it?

    But seriously, do you think it's OK for buses to be blocking paths and bike lanes at the time that they've never been needed more? Why can't he just wait on the road?

    Did you report it?

    That's the one they target at the yummy-mummies, right, so they can pretend they're exploring wild territories when they drive to the park to do their bootcamp, right? :D:D:D:D
    https://vimeo.com/220458259

    How Kuga are you, me arse! If you were really Kuga, you'd be running or cycling to the park for your bookcamp, missus.

    Not my quotes


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,846 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    A burgundy environment can you see the burgundy coloured car?

    Would you like me to post an image of a blue environment?
    Yes, I'd like you to post images of the blue and black environments that you had in mind when you referred to hi-vis giving improved visibility to cars in those environments. Presumably, you had some kind of real environment in mind, not something from a cartoon or art project. So yes, please post some photos of the real black or blue environments you had in mind.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Let me think about this, hmmm, how many times in over 45 years of motoring have I been on the side of a road with no lights at night for any reason. Oh I just realised never, how many times have you been stuck with no lights?
    Anyways, I don't think emblazoning all cars with HI viz Garda style markings is actually going to do any favours to Garda already working in a stressed environment, or to any of the service agencies that rely on people picking them out from the crowd on a busy road.


    Nah for the short walk from my house to the car on the driveway I figure if I'm going to be hit by a car there they would have missed seeing the wall as well, however, I do use HI viz if for any reason I'm ( for instance ) changing a tyre unless I'm on a particularly busy stretch of road of motorway when I'll call out the AA to do it for me. After all they have lovely HI viz and flashing Amber beacons just for that reason.

    Yet again, it is fascinating to see the painfully stretched excuses for the rationale for everyone but you having to act on your hi-vis recommendations. In all my 45 years of cycling, I've never been nearly hit by a driver who didn't see me because of my lack of hi-vis - so presumably you're now ready to step back on your recommendation for all cyclists to wear hi-vis at all times?

    And it's funny how you don't worry about service agencies ability to pick out their people on the road when everyone in the whole world is wrapped in hi-vis every time they leave their house, but you do worry about them picking out their cars - the cars with blue flashing lights and GARDA written in big letters on them.

    It's just a bit silly now, isn't it? Clearly, this is pure hypocrisy, using hi-vis as a stick to further your anti-cycling agenda. It's nothing to do with safety or visibility.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Did you report it?
    You didn't answer my question, so why would I answer yours? BTW, just three buses at the terminus this morning, down from the five or six that would have been there in March.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,792 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Yet again, it is fascinating to see the painfully stretched excuses for the rationale for everyone but you having to act on your hi-vis recommendations.
    That's because cars are already high visibility. Lights (including DRLs on modern cars), reflectors and so on. They are also a lot larger than a bicycle as I'm sure you're aware. If you're on the road and you don't see/perceive a car, you shouldn't be on the road.

    As you correctly point out, Garda cars have additional high-vis requirements, both static additions, strobe lights and sirens. This is because police cars, fire tenders and ambulances have different duties to normal cars and because by the very nature of their work, require additional distinction. If the average driver regularly had to stop in the middle of the road to fight house fires, then yes, hi-vis strips, strobe lights and so on would be warranted. No idea what this has to do with cycling when private cars are already adequately visible.
    In all my 45 years of cycling, I've never been nearly hit by a driver who didn't see me because of my lack of hi-vis - so presumably you're now ready to step back on your recommendation for all cyclists to wear hi-vis at all times?
    The only reason for this must be that you either:
    1) Always wear hi-vis
    2) Have never been nearly hit by a driver.
    It's just a bit silly now, isn't it? Clearly, this is pure hypocrisy, using hi-vis as a stick to further your anti-cycling agenda. It's nothing to do with safety or visibility.
    [sarcasm]Of course, we're all out to get you[/sarcasm] :rolleyes: It couldn't possibly be because any suggestion that cyclists should adhere to best practices and obey the law is met with scorn and derision (especially when cyclists condemn others on the same grounds). Nor could it be the sanctimonious hypocrisy of condemning motorists for exceeding "urban" speed limits on roads miles into the countryside while you yourselves disregard every law in the book and menace pedestrians as a matter of routine. No, that could not be it either. Sure, convince yourself that all us horrible motorists just hate you for no reason :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Yes, I'd like you to post images of the blue and black environments that you had in mind when you referred to hi-vis giving improved visibility to cars in those environments. Presumably, you had some kind of real environment in mind, not something from a cartoon or art project. So yes, please post some photos of the real black or blue environments you had in mind.

    Who said anything about a real enviroment, I just said a blue car in a blue environment, a burgandy car in a burgandy environment a black car in a black environment but if you want something as an example of a real life environment why not this
    Camouflaged-left-and-uncamouflaged-right-fuel-tanks-viewing-distance-50-m.png
    Now hi viz would definitely help someone :D




    Yet again, it is fascinating to see the painfully stretched excuses for the rationale for everyone but you having to act on your hi-vis recommendations. In all my 45 years of cycling, I've never been nearly hit by a driver who didn't see me because of my lack of hi-vis - so presumably you're now ready to step back on your recommendation for all cyclists to wear hi-vis at all times?
    That's fine then, all these near misses are because the drivers see people just in time, personally I'd prefer it if I had as much input to my visual senses as possible, so that it isn't a near miss, you don't agree and that's fine.
    And it's funny how you don't worry about service agencies ability to pick out their people on the road when everyone in the whole world is wrapped in hi-vis every time they leave their house, but you do worry about them picking out their cars - the cars with blue flashing lights and GARDA written in big letters on them.
    Oh now you think that cars need flashing blue lights as well, you'd like us all to pretend to be Garda vehicles. That'll workout well ( NOT! )
    It's just a bit silly now, isn't it? Clearly, this is pure hypocrisy, using hi-vis as a stick to further your anti-cycling agenda. It's nothing to do with safety or visibility.
    Yes you are, don't worry though most of your arguments on Boards seem to end this way
    You didn't answer my question, so why would I answer yours? BTW, just three buses at the terminus this morning, down from the five or six that would have been there in March.

    Really, I have answered, for some reason you just don't seem able to relate logic and science to real life situations. Perhaps you never attended the Junior science lessons where the laws of physics and how light reflects, gets absorbed, etc. were done.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,136 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    just back from a spin out to the stables with my wife; she's decided to start cycling out. and has made the wise decision to cycle on the footpath on a couple of sections.
    i've been going with her for her first few spins, and this morning, on a narrow road which is only a few hundred metres long, she went ahead of me cos i wanted to sit behind and further out (because the road surface is poor and i wanted any overtaking motorists to give plenty of room). obviously a couple of motorists didn't like this, because one beeped her horn and the other chap blew at us and ended up driving alongside us, clearly furious. i don't know exactly what he was saying because his window was up, but i can guess; he was accompanying his ire with hand gestures. he overtook coming up to a set of red lights so gained nothing.
    i guess the motorists made that typical motorist mistake of not understanding perspective and thinking that we were cycling side by side - not that that would excuse him - but just goes to show.

    and the funny thing is the footpath is in absolute **** along that road too. it's the stretch between the northside NCT centre and the side of the runway, would be a decent amount of cycle traffic on it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,859 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    just back from a spin out to the stables with my wife; she's decided to start cycling out. and has made the wise decision to cycle on the footpath on a couple of sections.
    i've been going with her for her first few spins, and this morning, on a narrow road which is only a few hundred metres long, she went ahead of me cos i wanted to sit behind and further out (because the road surface is poor and i wanted any overtaking motorists to give plenty of room). obviously a couple of motorists didn't like this, because one beeped her horn and the other chap blew at us and ended up driving alongside us, clearly furious. i don't know exactly what he was saying because his window was up, but i can guess; he was accompanying his ire with hand gestures. he overtook coming up to a set of red lights so gained nothing.
    i guess the motorists made that typical motorist mistake of not understanding perspective and thinking that we were cycling side by side - not that that would excuse him - but just goes to show.

    and the funny thing is the footpath is in absolute **** along that road too. it's the stretch between the northside NCT centre and the side of the runway, would be a decent amount of cycle traffic on it.


    Funny, I had a similar experience yesterday with a spotty little git in a pimped out Golf while out with the Mrs and Mini me. Not quite as aggressive but he did make sure to use his engine to voice his displeasure as he passed. I must admit I did tremble for his uber-manliness as he roared past :P

    I'm always bemused by the fact by those people that feel so important that they lose their sh*t over having to slow down behind a bike for a couple of seconds, because those same people often then find all the time in the world to tell you (while driving dangerously - driving while shouting out the passenger window, half over on the other side of the road etc) what you were doing wrong.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement