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
-
-
TallGlass2 wrote: »You've never cycled this patch.
Point blank you don't leave that part of the road, end of.
I done it once and it was a ****ing disaster.
Plus the wall is a good leg rest when stopped.
100% unless you've cycled this road you don't know how much of a hell it is.. all the way from Marino to 5 lamps , a d theres worse further along when the bike lane meanders around a bus stop .0 -
Oh God No, someone gets what they refer to as good cycling infrastructure and the next complaint is about the fvcking signage, Honest to God I swear if you gave cyclists a wish list the last one would probably be " I wish I had something to complain about"
https://twitter.com/PaulBerensheide/status/12867224585408225330 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,802 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 48245
Paul's time as Spokesman (ho ho!) For All Cyclists is coming to an end in a few months, you'll be glad to hear. we don't know which direction we'll take as a monolithic bloc when he's replaced.0 -
magicbastarder wrote: »Paul's time as Spokesman (ho ho!) For All Cyclists is coming to an end in a few months, you'll be glad to hear. we don't know which direction we'll take as a monolithic bloc when he's replaced.
Doesn't have to be a spokesman for any bloc, it's just an observation on cyclists in general. Give them an foot yard and they want 1.5 meters0 -
Advertisement
-
Oh God No, someone gets what they refer to as good cycling infrastructure and the next complaint is about the fvcking signage, Honest to God I swear if you gave cyclists a wish list the last one would probably be " I wish I had something to complain about"Doesn't have to be a spokesman for any bloc, it's just an observation on cyclists in general. Give them an foot yard and they want 1.5 meters
Though not a peep to say about the vast quantities of whinging and moaning from the lovely folks of Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock about the vast imposition arising from the total of 4km of cycle facilities in a county that has thousands of kilometres of road space - Okaaaay then.0 -
Pinch Flat wrote: »Just Checking in - what's going on longer? The pandemic or this thread?
There are unsubstantiated rumours of a vaccine emerging in other countries. Test results from the UK show that their Spook.ie is now working for PedalMe and their Tauren has sold his Audi and bought a Carrera hybrid in Halfords. He tried going to his local bike shop but his body kept throwing a wobbler once he got within 1.5 metres of the front door. The first dose did nothing for their SeanW, so they're trying a double dose now.0 -
Lies? All the data is publicly available. You seem to have missed the point that the majority of road deaths are motorists killing motorists and passengers, so you’re going to have to work hard to find a way to blame cyclists or pedestrians for those deaths.Well, since your misleading phraseology eliminates any question of fault or cause - which are wildly different in each case - we can safely assume this is a lie. Or at the very least, an intentional gross over-simplification.
It is intentionally evasive, yet another continuation of the trend of ‘accident’ to avoid any possibility of motorists being required to take responsibility for the carnage they cause on the road.Passive, yes, but it has the benefit of not being intentionally misleading.
It’s a simple physical fact. If the car, van or truck hadn’t been there, no one would have died. The death is the direct result of the presence of vehicle.This is misleading. Sentences in the English language that describe ones actions typically follow the form of Subject > Verb > Object. So when you take a statement like "motorist killed pedestrian" the implication is clear. The motorists was the primary actor and their actions lead to the death of another.
In probably about 8 of the 27 cases last year, this was likely to be true. In the others where pedestrian culpability was a factor, if not the factor, this statement is misleading. When addressing all the cases collectively, it is most accurate to use neutral terminology because the causal factors in each case are likely to have been different.
Except when you use loaded and intentionally misleading terminology like "motorist killed pedestrian" that closes off any question of culpability and makes clear your view that the motorist is the sole cause in all cases.
It doesn’t reference culpability either way. I’ve never suggested that the motorist is the sole cause in all cases.
Cyclists can indeed be dangerous, and there are decades of road safety data to help us understand this danger. In Ireland, the death ratio is about 2000:1, deaths by motorists to deaths by cyclists. In the UK, it has been around 1000:1 in recent years, any time that I’ve looked. So the degree of danger arising from cyclists is very, very small in proportion to that arising from motorists.
And cyclists are dangerous too, pedestrians routinely have to jump out of their way or be hit. Leading to examples such as another poster on here who has been hit by cyclists twice in the past 18 months.
No research is gospel from any source. Any sensible researcher will look at research with a sceptical eye and identify issues. The absence of any actual definition of culpability in what the RSA researched means that their culpability statistics are meaningless.Interesting how "RSA Research" is gospel when it proves your case, but "fatally flawed" when it doesn't :rolleyes:
That’s not quite the same format of calculation that you did to rule out any need for helmets for pedestrians though. You really should redo that calculation. You might learn something from it.Well, 8 pedal cyclists died last year, but are much smaller proportion of the Irish population than pedestrians, so yes, you are at higher risk.
In absolute terms, motorists are still killing two or three people each week, mostly other motorists or passengers, in mostly avoidable collisions.Not just relative it translates to absolute figures as well, as my calculations showed. In absolute terms the chance of a person dying on Irish roads overall is 0.003% per year. (150/5,000,000) * 100.
This clearly shows that Irish drivers are safe, not just in relative terms but in absolute terms as well. And that's ignoring collisions caused by non-motor road users.
Which reminds me, are you going to produce any examples of what you claimed were mostly unavoidable collisions? You said that most road deaths were unavoidable, but you failed to produce anything to support this.
Can you please clarify your point about ‘strange definitions’? Are you suggesting that it’s OK for road users to make case by case definitions about which traffic rules they comply with?
As to the question of "speeding in urban areas" there are relevant points being ignored.- Ireland has some strange definitions of "urban area"
- The fact that Irish road fatalities are so low indicates that most motorists do not take the piss.
Not so much a ‘talking point’ as a behaviour recognised by pretty much every safety authority in the world recognises as one of the top three or four causes of road deaths. In every collision, the speed has a huge impact on the outcome.So why then, all this concern about speed? Because it sounds to me very much like what you're saying is: "motorists are not obeying the rules and I want them to obey the rules or be made to obey the rules, because rules are rules and I want to cram down rules for no reason other than to cram down rules. Road safety? That's just a talking point."
Pedestrians hit by a car...at 30 km/h – 1 in 10 will die, at 50 km/h – 5 in 10 will die,at 60 km/h – 9 in 10 will die
https://rsa.ie/Documents/Campaigns/Wrecked/Downloads/Speed%20and%20Speeding.pdf
How could the driver have time to steer away but not have time to brake? I’d have thought any decent driver could do both at the same time?I didn't re-watch the video, but it looked like the cyclist acted too late for the trucker to slam on the brakes. Also, because the truck driver is a human being, they might have panicked and did what they could think of in the 0.5 seconds they had to react. The cyclist was clearly at full fault.0 -
Perhaps you'd prefer the term "intentionally misleading" to "lie"? That's fine by me. As to the term "accident" being used to avoid any possibility of motorists being required to take responsibility, that is more than misleading.AndrewJRenko wrote: »Lies? All the data is publicly available. You seem to have missed the point that the majority of road deaths are motorists killing motorists and passengers, so you’re going to have to work hard to find a way to blame cyclists or pedestrians for those deaths.
It is intentionally evasive, yet another continuation of the trend of ‘accident’ to avoid any possibility of motorists being required to take responsibility for the carnage they cause on the road.
Accident - in the context of road safety - simply means collision that was unintentional. Nothing more. Accident is of course used in other contexts. However there are times when terms like incident or collision are more appropriate, such as if the incident may have been intentional, such as vehicular terrorism or suicide. When referring to a group of collisions, any number of them may have been intentional, so it's best to use neutral terminology.
As to the concept of "avoiding responsibility" I don't know what other way to describe that than a lie. Hit and run collisions are rare, the data on that is clear. Most of the very, very, very small minority of motorists who cause injury or death are held to account.
Again, misleading. The death may be solely due to the presence of the vehicle but it may have been caused by (i.e. is a direct result of) the actions of the other road user. A driver driving a vehicle lawfully is entitled to be where they are. The other road user (if their actions or negligence causes a collision) is not.It’s a simple physical fact. If the car, van or truck hadn’t been there, no one would have died. The death is the direct result of the presence of vehicle.
It doesn’t reference culpability either way. I’ve never suggested that the motorist is the sole cause in all cases.
So ... it's fine that a pedestrian can be hit twice in 18 months by lawbreaking cyclists? No need to control the behaviour of hypocritical lawbreakers when they menace, bully and hit pedestrians as a matter of general routine, then complain about generally safe motorists? You couldn't make it up :eek:Cyclists can indeed be dangerous, and there are decades of road safety data to help us understand this danger. In Ireland, the death ratio is about 2000:1,
They went by death certificates, but they did identify causal factors like not looking before crossing, standing in the road (suicides maybe?) or lying down in the road. They also identified factors like intoxication, very often to extreme levels.No research is gospel from any source. Any sensible researcher will look at research with a sceptical eye and identify issues. The absence of any actual definition of culpability in what the RSA researched means that their culpability statistics are meaningless.
In case it was not obvious, I'm referring to rural countrysides that are regulated as "urban areas" because there happens to be a town or village a mile away. "Urban areas" that have one-off houses, green fields, cow pastures etc. that cause the definition of "urban area" to stretch credibility.Can you please clarify your point about ‘strange definitions’? Are you suggesting that it’s OK for road users to make case by case definitions about which traffic rules they comply with?
As to a cyclist talking about "make case by case definitions about which traffic rules they comply with?" that's a joke given the absolutely abominable way that Irish cyclists behave. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
So, to take this logic to its conclusion, why not just reduce all speed limits to 5kph?Not so much a ‘talking point’ as a behaviour recognised by pretty much every safety authority in the world recognises as one of the top three or four causes of road deaths. In every collision, the speed has a huge impact on the outcome.
Obviously you've never heard of braking distances?How could the driver have time to steer away but not have time to brake? I’d have thought any decent driver could do both at the same time?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braking_distance0 -
TallGlass2 wrote: »You've never cycled this patch.
Point blank you don't leave that part of the road, end of.
I done it once and it was a ****ing disaster.
Plus the wall is a good leg rest when stopped.
Oddly, many cyclists do...0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Cyclists come in all shapes and sizes, just like motorists, just like all people really. What works for one cyclist doesn't work for another cyclist, for all kinds of reasons. That shouldn't be a big surprise.TaurenDruid wrote: »Oddly, many cyclists do...
I've explained to a few people during online discussions it's not really a great idea to have a cycling club training spin of 10-20 people doing 30-40 kmph using a shared path/cycle lane that has families out for a walk with little kids and dog walkers. Usually when they think it through, they can get their heads around this fact.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Though not a peep to say about the vast quantities of whinging and moaning from the lovely folks of Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock about the vast imposition arising from the total of 4km of cycle facilities in a county that has thousands of kilometres of road space - Okaaaay then.
Perhaps a peep from the RNLI though
https://afloat.ie/port-news/dun-laoghaire-news/item/46934-new-dun-laoghaire-cycle-lane-blocks-primary-access-route-to-lifeboat-station?fbclid=IwAR3Vp_fpD-rwK6TbaN4d3tYIyCspYFyvy7vTf7B9id7FLvvsHVCszfONKT80 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,802 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 48245
"A reported delay of up to 20 minutes in accessing the Dún Laoghaire RNLI Lifeboat Station, claimed to be because of a new coastal cycle route, “cannot be substantiated”, a senior official at Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has said."
https://irishcycle.com/2020/07/20/claim-of-highly-popular-new-cycle-route-delaying-lifeboat-access-cannot-be-substantiated/0 -
magicbastarder wrote: »"A reported delay of up to 20 minutes in accessing the Dún Laoghaire RNLI Lifeboat Station, claimed to be because of a new coastal cycle route, “cannot be substantiated”, a senior official at Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has said."
https://irishcycle.com/2020/07/20/claim-of-highly-popular-new-cycle-route-delaying-lifeboat-access-cannot-be-substantiated/
Think I'd put more faith inMr Stephen Wynne, the Lifeboat Operations Manager at RNLI Dun Laoghaire told Afloat the lifesaving charity was currently 'in consultation with DLRCoCo to find an amicable solution'.
than any Irish Cycle and Ginty article0 -
Today's adventuring cyclists' observed: two muppets on the south quays approaching O'Connell Street. Well - I was legally approaching O'Connell Street. The cyclists - lycra clad, helmets, expensive looking racers, so not average commuters - are on the road, cycling towards Townsend Street. So, the wrong way down a one-way road. Seeing other cyclists heading towards them in the same lane - they hop up on the footpath and continue cycling. Towards more pedestrians!
Like, where does the entitlement end?0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,802 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 48245
uh, d'olier street by the sound of it.0 -
But but, but, but whatabout, whatabout motorists? Here's some pictures of crappy parking jobs! Motorists are horrible! And speed, they break "urban" speed limits past one-off houses and agricultural fields in the middle of nowhere. The monsters!TaurenDruid wrote: »Today's adventuring cyclists' observed: two muppets on the south quays approaching O'Connell Street. Well - I was legally approaching O'Connell Street. The cyclists - lycra clad, helmets, expensive looking racers, so not average commuters - are on the road, cycling towards Townsend Street. So, the wrong way down a one-way road. Seeing other cyclists heading towards them in the same lane - they hop up on the footpath and continue cycling. Towards more pedestrians!
Like, where does the entitlement end?
Am I doing this right Andy?0 -
TaurenDruid wrote: »Today's adventuring cyclists' observed: two muppets on the south quays approaching O'Connell Street. Well - I was legally approaching O'Connell Street. The cyclists - lycra clad, helmets, expensive looking racers, so not average commuters - are on the road, cycling towards Townsend Street. So, the wrong way down a one-way road. Seeing other cyclists heading towards them in the same lane - they hop up on the footpath and continue cycling. Towards more pedestrians!
Like, where does the entitlement end?
I'll add what I saw today.
Driving along the Oscar Traynor road this morning heading towards santry and saw 2 pieces of poor driving in the vicinity of cyclists in the space of 2 minutes
1) Car pulls out in front of me. Further up the road and coming up to a junction with green light, the motorists goes past a cyclist cutting across the front of him to turn left........motorist could not be bothered holding back as the cyclist was going straight .....would have taken a few seconds.
Then further up the road
2) two lanes of traffic .... bus lane and lane for other vehicles..... now it is after 10am so it's ok to use the bus lane even thought vast majority of motorists don't.
Myself and another car ahead of me. Cyclist in the bus lane. Car goes by me at higher speed in the bus lane..... .because of cyclist is forced to slow down....car ahead of me and the cyclist are more less parallel. The car in the bus lane then over take the cyclist with a gap few inches ....at the point of overtake, the cyclist, car in bus lane and car in front of me are parallel. The wheels of the car in the bus lane barely touched the white lane dividing the 2 lanes.
The cyclist raised is right hand in frustration more or less saying ....WTF
The car then moves into the left lane ahead of the car in front of me and as approaches the roundabout that over the M1 goes all the way around to go onto the M1 ......not a blink of an indicator in sight
Two impatient drivers who have no interest about the safety of vulnerable road users.0 -
But but, but, but whatabout, whatabout motorists? Here's some pictures of crappy parking jobs! Motorists are horrible! And speed, they break "urban" speed limits past one-off houses and agricultural fields in the middle of nowhere. The monsters!
Am I doing this right Andy?
You forgot to mention the factual stuff about the carnage caused by motorists on the road.
https://www.thejournal.ie/wexford-crash-witness-appeal-5159922-Jul2020/
Make sure that you never attribute any responsibility to the driver. Always use language like 'the truck lost control'. Never say anything like 'the driver lost control'.
https://www.buzz.ie/news/man-killed-in-tipperary-road-crash-in-which-driver-failed-to-remain-at-the-scene-378160
Don't use 'misleading' terms like hit-and-run, make sure you smooth it out as much as you can by saying nice things like 'failed to remain at the scene'. Another of those 'exceedingly rare' events I guess.
When you see lots of people being killed on the road, make sure that you don't attribute any responsibility to drivers. Say things like 'we're all baffled as to how this could possibly happen (even though we all see drivers speeding, using their phones, and busy pub car parks all the time).
So maybe a D+ grade there Seanie - lots of room for improvement.0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually, no - no peep from the RNLI, beyond saying that they're in discussions. No mention from the RNLI source of the 20 minute delay.
Strange how the RNLI never had any little problem with traffic in Dun Laoghaire ever before though. Curious that....0 -
Plenty of flat earth types in here. You can bring a horse to water...but some horses simply refuse to drink because they took the wrong side in an argument and their pride simply will not let them back down.
So they double down, seemingly keeping their pride intact, all the while being laughed at by all and sundry.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Actually, no - no peep from the RNLI, beyond saying that they're in discussions. No mention from the RNLI source of the 20 minute delay.
Strange how the RNLI never had any little problem with traffic in Dun Laoghaire ever before though. Curious that....
Yeah curious that they never had to go a longer way to get the boat station if they lived/worked/socialized on the wrong side of town because of a new one way system, still I suppose they'll just rescue the people in trouble faster to make up for lost time!0 -
Uh-oh looks like Seans regressed back to his totally non-idiotic "someone doing something on a bicycle is exactly as dangerous with exactly the same potential consequences as doing it in a 2 ton car, I am very clever" phase...But but, but, but whatabout, whatabout motorists? Here's some pictures of crappy parking jobs! Motorists are horrible! And speed, they break "urban" speed limits past one-off houses and agricultural fields in the middle of nowhere. The monsters!
Am I doing this right Andy?0 -
‘Accident’ is far from neutral terminology. It is the complete opposite of neutral. It is absolutely intended to take motorists off the hook. That’s why police forces and road safety authorities don’t use it. They use crash or collision, or RTC. You don’t speed by accident. You speed as a result of the pressure you put on the accelerator. You don’t use your phone while driving by accident. You use your phone as a result of a decision to put your entertainment ahead of the safety of those around you. You don’t drink drive by accident. You drink drive as a result of a decision to ignore the safety of those around you.Perhaps you'd prefer the term "intentionally misleading" to "lie"? That's fine by me. As to the term "accident" being used to avoid any possibility of motorists being required to take responsibility, that is more than misleading.
Accident - in the context of road safety - simply means collision that was unintentional. Nothing more. Accident is of course used in other contexts. However there are times when terms like incident or collision are more appropriate, such as if the incident may have been intentional, such as vehicular terrorism or suicide. When referring to a group of collisions, any number of them may have been intentional, so it's best to use neutral terminology.
In almost every case when ‘accident’ is used in the media, it is misleading - as no information is available when reporting a particular crash about actual cause, so concluding that it is an ‘accident’ is factually incorrect.
You seem to have a rather narrow interpretation of ‘taking responsibility’. If you don’t crash, then you’re OK apparently.As to the concept of "avoiding responsibility" I don't know what other way to describe that than a lie. Hit and run collisions are rare, the data on that is clear. Most of the very, very, very small minority of motorists who cause injury or death are held to account.
I’d have a broader view of what ‘taking responsibility’ means. For a start, it means putting your phone away while you drive. It means not taking stupid risks with your speed or your road position or your cutting of corners that will get you to the next set of lights a few seconds faster. That’s the kind of responsibility that many motorists fail to take all the time, all around us.
Keep an eye on the dashcams thread in the Motors forum and see how many of those drivers are taking responsibility.
Congrats. That’s a very big leap for you (the bolded piece), so I’m glad to helped to bring you along the journey. You’re right to say it may have been caused by the actions of the other road user. It’s worth remembering that for most road deaths, the other road user is another motorist – so one or other motorist is to blame.Again, misleading. The death may be solely due to the presence of the vehicle but it may have been caused by (i.e. is a direct result of) the actions of the other road user. A driver driving a vehicle lawfully is entitled to be where they are. The other road user (if their actions or negligence causes a collision) is not.
I never said it was fine that anyone would be hit by anyone at all. Having spent about 15 years in work around the city centre, there’s something strange about those reports. I’ve never been hit by any cyclist. I’ve seen a few cases of cyclist behaviour that put themselves in danger. I’ve seen a small number of cases of cyclist behaviour that put other people in danger. I can’t recall a single incident of seeing a cyclist hit somebody over that time.So ... it's fine that a pedestrian can be hit twice in 18 months by lawbreaking cyclists? No need to control the behaviour of hypocritical lawbreakers when they menace, bully and hit pedestrians as a matter of general routine, then complain about generally safe motorists? You couldn't make it up :eek:
I’m sure those incidents do happen. I’m also very sure that they are very few and very far between. The absence of any court reports or KSI reports or medical research is a very strong indication that the outcome of such incidents is minimal.
The ‘death certificates’ bit seemed very strange to me, as the doctor certifying the death would have no idea about the cause of injuries. Doctors certify the medical cause of death. They don’t investigate collisions and attribute responsibility.They went by death certificates, but they did identify causal factors like not looking before crossing, standing in the road (suicides maybe?) or lying down in the road. They also identified factors like intoxication, very often to extreme levels.
And again, we have no definition of culpability, so any figures quoted are utterly meaningless, without knowing what they refer to.
Your quibbles on the definition of ‘urban’ are entirely irrelevant. What is absolutely clear is that you have no difficulty with motorists (the ones who kill 2 or 3 people each week) making their own individual case-by-case decisions about whether they could be arsed to comply with speed limits or not (knowing that speeding is one of the top three causes of road deaths world-wide).In case it was not obvious, I'm referring to rural countrysides that are regulated as "urban areas" because there happens to be a town or village a mile away. "Urban areas" that have one-off houses, green fields, cow pastures etc. that cause the definition of "urban area" to stretch credibility.
As to a cyclist talking about "make case by case definitions about which traffic rules they comply with?" that's a joke given the absolutely abominable way that Irish cyclists behave. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
But a cyclist choosing to break a red light or to cycle on the path because they’ve been scared on the road is ‘menacing’? You’re dead right – you really couldn’t make it up. The sheer blinding hypocrisy is literally incredible.
Well, hopefully the collective drivers of Ireland could manage to stop killing people before we get all the way down to 5kph. Is there any chance of that?So, to take this logic to its conclusion, why not just reduce all speed limits to 5kph?
Is there any chance that you’ll give some examples, maybe from Court reports or Coroner inquest reports of those ‘unavoidable’ deaths that make up the majority of road deaths. It’s strange how you’re so reluctant to back up your claim with any specifics there.
I’m open to persuasion, but he really didn’t seem to brake at all. He seemed to keep driving at the same speed, trying to steer around the cyclist. Surely the first reaction should be to jam on in a situation like that?Obviously you've never heard of braking distances?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braking_distance0 -
Yeah curious that they never had to go a longer way to get the boat station if they lived/worked/socialized on the wrong side of town because of a new one way system, still I suppose they'll just rescue the people in trouble faster to make up for lost time!
Curious that they never had a traffic problem in Dun Laoghaire before the cycle lane came along, given the consistently busy levels of traffic there, frequently jammed up over summer weekends.
Ne'er a peep out of them apparently. That stretches credibility, doesn't it?0 -
TaurenDruid wrote: »Today's adventuring cyclists' observed: two muppets on the south quays approaching O'Connell Street. Well - I was legally approaching O'Connell Street. The cyclists - lycra clad, helmets, expensive looking racers, so not average commuters - are on the road, cycling towards Townsend Street. So, the wrong way down a one-way road. Seeing other cyclists heading towards them in the same lane - they hop up on the footpath and continue cycling. Towards more pedestrians!
Like, where does the entitlement end?
Two cyclists On the pavement? Shocking! Can you imagine the carnage if they hit a pedestrian at 15kph?
Meanwhile on the M9:
https://twitter.com/gardatraffic/status/1287106044913754112?s=210 -
So your intellectual superiority is such that it took decades, global pandemic and Greens in government for cycling infrastructure to start improving. Basically the attitude like yours is hated so much that just about anyone will be listened to before you and people like you.shootermacg wrote: »Plenty of flat earth types in here. You can bring a horse to water...but some horses simply refuse to drink because they took the wrong side in an argument and their pride simply will not let them back down.
So they double down, seemingly keeping their pride intact, all the while being laughed at by all and sundry.
It must be some uber smart tactic to win people on your side that nobody really understands.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Curious that they never had a traffic problem in Dun Laoghaire before the cycle lane came along, given the consistently busy levels of traffic there, frequently jammed up over summer weekends.
Ne'er a peep out of them apparently. That stretches credibility, doesn't it?
Do you think that possibly there wasn't a need for them to circumnavigate around a cycle lane that wasn't there or are you just intent on stretching the credibility of you not knowing what's taking place with regard to not being able to take the most direct route to a lifeboat station?
Hope you never need rescuing, those few minutes might save someones life!0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement