Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

A quick question. Do people actually watch linked videos? EspeciallyTwitter links. If I wanted to follow tweets I would on Twitter. (I might be weird I even find 'funny' WhatsApp videos tedious. At some stage it's just video pollution.)

>100 views on one of the vids I posted on this thread, so yeah, some people watch them.

ewc78

meeeeh wrote: »

A quick question. Do people actually watch linked videos? EspeciallyTwitter links. If I wanted to follow tweets I would on Twitter. (I might be weird I even find 'funny' WhatsApp videos tedious. At some stage it's just video pollution.)

Don't look at any of the ones posted on here anyways.

Hurrache

ewc78 wrote: »

Don't look at any of the ones posted on here anyways.

Casey78

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

>100 views on one of the vids I posted on this thread, so yeah, some people watch them.

Yeah but you've clicked on the link 99 times yourself
I'd say GCN are quaking in their boots!

Hurrache

Casey78 wrote: »

Yeah but you've clicked on the link 99 times yourself
I'd say GCN are quaking in their boots!

You gotta laugh with posts like this trying to be all cool and **** and yet have a fascination with the thread and people in it.

Casey78

Hurrache wrote: »

You gotta laugh with posts like this trying to be all cool and **** and yet have a fascination with the thread and people in it.

Dear God, do you actually read what you have written before you post?

FinnC

meeeeh wrote: »

A quick question. Do people actually watch linked videos? EspeciallyTwitter links. If I wanted to follow tweets I would on Twitter. (I might be weird I even find 'funny' WhatsApp videos tedious. At some stage it's just video pollution.)

The videos on here are getting a bit tiresome as I don't really understand what new point they are trying to make that hasn't been made already 100 times before. But then to be fair none of this thread makes much sense!

07Lapierre

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I must have missed something, what's the issue here?

Yes you missed a lot! You clearly don’t cycle a lot.

AndrewJRenko

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Are we watching the same clip? He didn't encounter a single parked car. Encountered a dozen entrances but that's normal.

Try counting the Yield signs.

AndrewJRenko

FinnC wrote: »

The videos on here are getting a bit tiresome as I don't really understand what new point they are trying to make that hasn't been made already 100 times before. But then to be fair none of this thread makes much sense!

So are we all agreed that drivers driving through late reds isn't all that unusual after all?

07Lapierre

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

There's a very nice Lane going up the side of the airport from old airport road to the first entrance to the airport. The lane between that and the main entrance is not perfect but I cycle it every day without issue.

They lane between the airport and the cloghran roundabout is a joke in fairness and yes, the santry area is a disgrace.

Nice smooth black tarmac is not what makes a good bike/shared pedestrian pavement.

07Lapierre

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I must have missed something, what's the issue here?

This might help the penny drop!

https://twitter.com/juststepsways/status/1278777179317456899?s=21

Hurrache

FinnC wrote: »

The videos on here are getting a bit tiresome as I don't really understand what new point they are trying to make that hasn't been made already 100 times before. But then to be fair none of this thread makes much sense!

Problem is that people still don't get the point despite it having being made over 100 times. It's evident on the roads and the thread, with the most recent example only being a few posts back.

meeeeh

Hurrache wrote: »

Problem is that people still don't get the point despite it having being made over 100 times. It's evident on the roads and the thread, with the most recent example only being a few posts back.

'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.'

Hurrache

meeeeh wrote: »

'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.'

And yet you continue to visit a thread you have issues with. Certainly is insanity.

meeeeh

Hurrache wrote: »

And yet you continue to visit a thread you have issues with. Certainly is insanity.

I don't think I expect different results.

Spook_ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Try counting the Yield signs.

Since when has a Yield sign been classed as a parked car? and yes I saw them and did he have to yield at any of them? The only one would seem to be the last one at the roundabout where he yielded to the blue van.

Hurrache

Would you drive down a road in which you have to yield every few metres as you're deemed to have less importance than someone else, or would you take the adjacent road that gives you priority over that other person?

Don't be making stupid arguments for the sake of it.

Spook_ie

Hurrache wrote: »

Would you drive down a road in which you have to yield every few metres as you're deemed to have less importance than someone else, or would you take the adjacent road that gives you priority over that other person?

Don't be making stupid arguments for the sake of it.

I drive on whichever roads get to my destination and follow the road traffic rules as I do it. Don't you?

Hurrache

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Try counting the Yield signs.

No, that's not what you said, you said cars parked.

Yield signs are just normal for cycle lanes. Nothing strange or exciting about the video if that's what it's about

Hurrache

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Yield signs are just normal for cycle lanes.

And therein lies the problem, doesn't it? Why would you use one littered with yield signs over an adjacent road?

07Lapierre

07Lapierre wrote: »

This might help the penny drop!

https://twitter.com/juststepsways/status/1278777179317456899?s=21

First off I cycle daily.

Secondly, I see nothing unusual. Cycle lanes cut in and out. That's the way they are.

So are you telling me that the video in reality, shows me nothing new and absolutely nothing to do with parked cars which was the original comment? I see why people don't bother watching them

Spook_ie

Hurrache wrote: »

Doesn't look the safest of playgrounds, still I suppose if anything happened it will be the farmer's insurance that will pay out.

07Lapierre

07Lapierre wrote: »

Nice smooth black tarmac is not what makes a good bike/shared pedestrian pavement.

A dedicated, nice smooth, large and straight route doesn't work for you? What exactly is it missing?

Spook_ie

Hurrache wrote: »

And therein lies the problem, doesn't it? Why would you use one littered with yield signs over an adjacent road?

Why would you be asking about parked cars in a video about yield signs ( which had no effect on the cyclist as there was nothing to yield to! )

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

And therein lies the problem, doesn't it? Why would you use one littered with yield signs over an adjacent road?

Accepted. But that's as I said, normal. I expected something different from the video and when I asked for clarification was accused of being blind because I couldn't see a **** load of invisible cars apparently.

I then asked if I Andrew was watching the same video as me and instead of getting clarification, I recieved another snotty answer.

Presumable Andrew was mistaken but can't admit that because that would make his original smart arse reply look silly.

Spook_ie

07Lapierre wrote: »

This might help the penny drop!

https://twitter.com/juststepsways/status/1278777179317456899?s=21

Ah I see, he was looking for somewhere to do a U Turn, penny dropped, though why he didn't do it at the lights he stopped for somewhat confuses the issue!

AndrewJRenko

Spook_ie wrote: »

I drive on whichever roads get to my destination and follow the road traffic rules as I do it. Don't you?

Have you ever driven on a road with that many Yield signs within that distance?

AndrewJRenko

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No, that's not what you said, you said cars parked.

Yield signs are just normal for cycle lanes. Nothing strange or exciting about the video if that's what it's about

The 'parked cars' reference was a little joke on the inability of certain people to see anything on the road unless it is plastered with hi-vis. Sorry if that went over your head.

This number of yield signs over such a short distance is far from normal. Did you really need someone to spell that out for you?

Why not have the Yield signs facing the traffic exiting and entering, so each user faces one yield sign instead of one road user facing 20 odd signs?