Gardai say cyclists must change attitude

Lumen · 13-04-2017 12:30AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Ok. I wonder, of that 50% quoted above, how many had not been wearing a seatbelt, didn't have airbags, were drunk, under the influence of drugs, speeding etc. I wonder how many of that 50% were sober and driving with due care and attention in a car with modern crash protection.

Why don't you look for some numbers rather than idly speculating, Professor?

Or just keep moving the goalposts.

Cars are not safe. We know that because lots of people die in them.

PeadarCo · 13-04-2017 12:33AM

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Ok. I wonder, of that 50% quoted above, how many had not been wearing a seatbelt, didn't have airbags, were drunk, under the influence of drugs, speeding etc. I wonder how many of that 50% were sober and driving with due care and attention in a car with modern crash protection.

Can I ask why your not asking the same type of questions in relation to high vis and helmets? You raise a series of valid points there in relation to the benefits of crash helmets in cars and the 50% figure.

ThisRegard · 13-04-2017 12:35AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wonder how cyclists who cycle on pedestrian paths would feel if a toddler or an old person stepped out of their house on to the pavement in front of them.

You've certainly jumped the shark now.

Jimoslimos · 13-04-2017 12:35AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wonder how cyclists who cycle on pedestrian paths would feel if a toddler or an old person stepped out of their house on to the pavement in front of them.

Would the toddler be wearing a luminous yellow hi-vis romper suit?
What's that you say?....completely irrelevant? Exactly.

Nobody here is condoning pavement cycling.

meeeeh · 13-04-2017 12:35AM

dreamerb wrote: »

The what now?

This has to be a new peak in anticipatory victim blaming coupled with "smug cyclist" cliche.

You're posting in the cycling forum. There is no-one in here advocating cycling unlit in the dark going the wrong way on one way streets ("ninja salmon"). While breaking red lights.

We are perfectly reasonably concerned at proposed "safety" measures for which there is no evidence, and which may discourage cycling uptake - as opposed to enforcement of actual laws on drivers and cyclists alike.

Oh spare me the victim blaming. I didn't write anything about victim, I despise an argument that because you do less damage with bike you are less responsible. Weather you are walking, cycling or driving you are responsible for your own safety and safety of others and should behave accordingly. But yeah go on play the victim card...

PeadarCo · 13-04-2017 12:39AM

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Well, to be honest, I'm not going to stop posting on driver safety or cyclist safety because you think that I "don't have a clue" or haven't done enough research. Nor will I be run off the thread by patronising elitism because I haven't "built up trust" "over a few years" for a poster. I'm sure they know where the ignore button is.

Its not elitism all your been asked to do is back your views with evidence. Not that hard.

Professor Moriarty · 13-04-2017 12:40AM

Lumen wrote: »

Why don't you look for some numbers rather than idly speculating, Professor?

Or just keep moving the goalposts.

Cars are not safe. We know that because lots of people die in them.

I'm not speculating. I'm drilling down into a very simple stat that compared head injuries suffered by cyclists and car drivers. I didn't provide the stat so I don't have provide the numbers. Until those numbers are provided then the stat is irrelevant. If you don't understand that, then I can understand why you would think I was "moving the goalposts".

Similarly, saying that cars aren't safe because people die in them is rather meaningless.

dreamerb · 13-04-2017 12:41AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wonder how cyclists who cycle on pedestrian paths would feel if a toddler or an old person stepped out of their house on to the pavement in front of them.

Surprised? Alarmed? Indifferent (five-year-old cyclists can be *so* self-centred)?

If I encounter footpath cyclists on my (fairly busy) road as a pedestrian, I don't give way and I glare - subject to the approximately under ten / over seventy / accompanying same rule at which point I reckon relative vulnerability makes it excusable.

If you mean the toddler / old person is injured or killed... well that's not what you actually "wondered".

Professor Moriarty · 13-04-2017 12:43AM

PeadarCo wrote: »

Its not elitism all your been asked to do is back your views with evidence. Not that hard.

Which view? And yes, it was elitism by that other poster. Shallow and petty, but elitism nonetheless.

Professor Moriarty · 13-04-2017 12:46AM

dreamerb wrote: »

Surprised? Alarmed? Indifferent (five-year-old cyclists can be *so* self-centred)?

If I encounter footpath cyclists on my (fairly busy) road as a pedestrian, I don't give way and I glare - subject to the approximately under ten / over seventy / accompanying same rule at which point I reckon relative vulnerability makes it excusable.

If you mean the toddler / old person is injured or killed... well that's not what you actually "wondered".

I think if I hit a four year old who had stepped on the pavement while I was cycling I'd be very afraid and very ashamed. The cyclists I see doing this seem oblivious to the danger they are placing other people in.

PeadarCo · 13-04-2017 12:48AM

Professor Moriarty wrote:

Which view? And yes, it was elitism by that other poster. Shallow and petty, but elitism nonetheless.

What has that got to do with my post. The reason I've said your views come across as clueless is that you rely completely on anecdotes and no researched evidence. Its very simple to refute that point by supplying hard evdience. As already mentioned high vis and helmets have been discussed to death on megathreads here so you don't have to go far to refute my point. All your talk about elitism and so forth actually reinforces my point.

dreamerb · 13-04-2017 12:50AM

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh spare me the victim blaming. I didn't write anything about victim, I despise an argument that because you do less damage with bike you are less responsible. Weather you are walking, cycling or driving you are responsible for your own safety and safety of others and should behave accordingly. But yeah go on play the victim card...

You said "What if you get yourself killled?". How is that not casting blame?

I didn't argue anything about doing less damage, but frankly physics makes that argument for me, nor did I make an argument about being less responsible. I am responsible for my own safety and that of others. I have never hurt anyone in any transport mode nor do I expect to.

I'm just taking you up on a strange presumption you have made that someone would get themselves killed, rather than being killed.

Lumen · 13-04-2017 12:50AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm not speculating. I'm drilling down into a very simple stat that compared head injuries suffered by cyclists and car drivers. I didn't provide the stat so I don't have provide the numbers. Until those numbers are provided then the stat is irrelevant. If you don't understand that, then I can understand why you would think I was "moving the goalposts".

Similarly, saying that cars aren't safe because people die in them is rather meaningless.

Putting aside your failure to contribute any insightful stats from your own research, I've no idea what point you're even making.

Professor Moriarty · 13-04-2017 12:51AM

PeadarCo wrote: »

What has that got to do with my post. The reason I've said your views come across as clueless is that you rely completely on anecdotes and no researched evidence. Its very simple to refute that point by supplying hard evdience. As already mentioned high vis and helmets have been discussed to death on megathreads here so you don't have to go far to refute my point. All your talk about elitism and so forth actually reinforces my point.

It has plenty to do with your post. But, moving on and again, why not simply address the points I make or ignore them as you see fit?

Charles Babbage · 13-04-2017 12:51AM

Lights are already required on bicycles and modern led lights and rechargeable batteries make lighting easy to achieve. Yet many ignore the law and Gardai do nothing to enforce it. Maybe start there rather than passing motions?

PeadarCo · 13-04-2017 12:53AM

Professor Moriarty wrote:

It has plenty to do with your post. But, moving on and again, why not simply address the points I make or ignore them as you see fit?

What constructive points have you made?

Professor Moriarty · 13-04-2017 12:56AM

Lumen wrote: »

Putting aside your failure to contribute any insightful stats from your own research, I've no idea what point you're even making.

Yeah. If you still don't understand, that's ok, just ignore it.

Lumen · 13-04-2017 12:56AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah. If you still don't understand, that's ok, just ignore it.

What point are you making?

dreamerb · 13-04-2017 12:57AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think if I hit a four year old who had stepped on the pavement while I was cycling I'd be very afraid and very ashamed. The cyclists I see doing this seem oblivious to the danger they are placing other people in.

I'm sure you would, as would anyone on here. No-one's going to justify cycling heedlessly on pavements, though a few parents will very reasonably say that when cycling with very small children they will have the children on the pavement.

But how many cyclists have you seen hitting four year olds anyway? Cos I think this is a bit of a straw man here.

tomasrojo · 13-04-2017 12:58AM

Lumen wrote: »

What point are you making?

I'm sorry to say that I'm stumped too.

Professor Moriarty · 13-04-2017 01:02AM

PeadarCo wrote: »

What constructive points have you made?

I've made points about cyclists and drivers in the past half hour. Yet again, address them or not as you see fit. To this point, you haven't addressed a single specific point I made. If you think ad hominum attacks on me about "not having a clue" will stop me posting then I'm afraid you'll be disappointed.

tomasrojo · 13-04-2017 01:05AM

As far as I can tell, you said:
Cars are safe (enough) already from the point of view of the occupants
Cyclists should not cycle on the footpath, especially where there's a risk of hitting vulnerable pedestrians

I guess that's true (certainly the second one).

What now?

Professor Moriarty · 13-04-2017 01:06AM

dreamerb wrote: »

I'm sure you would, as would anyone on here. No-one's going to justify cycling heedlessly on pavements, though a few parents will very reasonably say that when cycling with very small children they will have the children on the pavement.

But how many cyclists have you seen hitting four year olds anyway? Cos I think this is a bit of a straw man here.

None thankfully. But if cyclists continue to cycle on the pavement then it's inevitable.

I don't see why it's a straw man. Isn't the title of the thread: GardaÃ say cyclists must change attitude?

Professor Moriarty · 13-04-2017 01:07AM

Lumen wrote: »

What point are you making?

That the stat was too general to be meaningful. But look, if you don't understand why, then the explanation would be lost on you also.

PeadarCo · 13-04-2017 01:10AM

Professor Moriarty wrote:

I've made points about cyclists and drivers in the past half hour. Yet again, address them or not as you see fit. To this point, you haven't addressed a single specific point I made. If you think ad hominum attacks on me about "not having a clue" will stop me posting then I'm afraid you'll be disappointed.

I'm attacking your points and more specifically the lack of evidence backing them up. I've explained that already. I and others have asked for evidence that high vis is beneficial and I mean hard evidence based research. The same for helmets. All your points are anecdotal which means they prove nothing. There's nothing in your posts to refute. You can't prove a negative.

Jimoslimos · 13-04-2017 01:11AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

None thankfully. But if cyclists continue to cycle on the pavement then it's inevitable?

I hear ISIS are planning to use that very tactic to cause massive fatalities and terror in European cities.

Professor Moriarty · 13-04-2017 01:12AM

tomasrojo wrote: »

As far as I can tell, you said:
Cars are safe (enough) already from the point of view of the occupants
Cyclists should not cycle on the footpath, especially where there's a risk of hitting vulnerable pedestrians

I guess that's true (certainly the second one).

What now?

I said a lot more. For instance regarding cars, the reason that cars aren't safer is because of the bite point between comfort, safety and cost. Regarding cyclists I said that, pro rata, far more bikes are unlit at night than cars. And so on. But in the elitist hubris, none of those (and other points) were addressed.

The_Valeyard · 13-04-2017 01:12AM

Great news

Next step fines and introduction of penalty points for cyclists for no High Vis or Helmet.

/Valeyard.

dreamerb · 13-04-2017 01:13AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

None thankfully. But if cyclists continue to cycle on the pavement then it's inevitable.

I don't see why it's a straw man. Isn't the title of the thread: GardaÃ say cyclists must change attitude?

You're saying that something will inevitably happen (which would not, incidentally, be affected by the actual AGSI proposals since cycling on pavements is already illegal), and then basing your argument on this (still hypothetical) eventuality. That's quite straw-y.

But hey, if you'll agree that cyclists obeying the actual already existing rules will satisfy you, we can finish this up on a happy note

.

I only hope that motorists will too :P

tomasrojo · 13-04-2017 01:16AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I said a lot more. For instance regarding cars, the reason that cars aren't safer is because of the bite point between comfort, safety and cost.

And not wanting to look like a goofy 25th-century card sharp, yes.

The same goes for all modes of transport though. Municipal bus services don't require seat belts, and they allow people to stand in a moving vehicle that can come to an abrupt halt.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Regarding cyclists I said that, pro rata, far more bikes are unlit at night than cars.

Well, yes, it's relatively uncommon for cars to be unlit. They do have built-in lights that don't require battery replacement or recharging. What's your point though? That the GardaÃ should enforce the bicycle lighting law? That would have broad support on this forum. I think it's been mentioned approvingly several times already.

Gardai say cyclists must change attitude

Comments