What's the obsession middle aged lads have with cycling?

prinzeugen wrote: »

So there is no evidence that lack of training caused cyclist deaths but you know all of them were caused by motorists?

Please share the sources for this crap!

And a car going through yellow lights is legal. A cyclist going through a red light while there is a green man is not. Cyclists far outnumber cars doing this. Fact.

That is illegal, but hundreds of cyclists think it is Ok to do. Fact.

And I am still waiting for you to provide proof that "motorists" killed xx number of people on the roads. I have asked you again and again to prove the false claims and you have never once provided evidence .

It sounds like you don't understand how 'lack of evidence' works. Lack of evidence means, well, that there is a lack of evidence. It's fairly hard to prove it. But it is very easy to disprove it. All you have to do is come up with some actual evidence - come with a few cases or a trend showing how lack of training caused cyclist deaths. I've followed these issues fairly closely for the last five to ten years, and I can't recall any such situations, beyond the handful that I've mentioned above - but if you have some background or experience that justifies your victim-blaming approach, then by all means get it up on the table for everyone to see.
You seem to be surprised at the idea of motorists being held responsible for deaths on the roads. Cyclists aren't the common denominator in road deaths. Cyclists are involved in about 5% of road deaths. Motorists are involved in about 99% of road deaths. It's not hard to see the common factor that causes road deaths. If you want more detail, look at the RSA reports analysing road deaths in particular years. They are fairly clear on the root causes - speeding, bad equipment, drink driving all feature prominently.

P_1 wrote: »

Dude take a chill. I'm a fairly vocal campaigner for better cycling facilities but your shrillness is even making me turn against cyclists. How do you think that makes motorists and politicians view the campaigns?

Look advocating for change is a good thing but things aren't going to change overnight. Rather than coming across as whingers, which is the impression I'm getting as of late we need to be more practical and pragmatic. Yes lobby and advocate, Phil Skelton is a great example of this, but also share the skills we all have built up. You see all sorts of idiocy on the roads. Were just going to get hi vis fetishism from the RSA. It's time for us to stand up.

Thanks for the advice on 'tone'. It reminds of all the advice given to those obstreperous and shrill young ladies during the Repeal the Eight campaign about how they needed to be more respectful of their elders and betters. We know how that turned out, don't we?
The time to stand up was ten years ago, not now. I've been standing up for 10+ years, shining a big bright light on the root causes of deaths on our roads - the motorists who kill three or four people each week and maim many more. It might be unpalatable for some, but them's the facts. Until we, as a society, start recognising the damage done by motorists every day on our roads, we won't come near solving the problem.

dense wrote: »

Two middle aged males having fun out walking together every evening would get the curtain twitchers talking.

Would this really get the curtains twitching? I know it doesn't happen as much with lads as with the ladies, but if that's all it takes to get the curtains twitching, then the obvious solution is to just say - f&&& em. It's the same obvious solution as those who 'hate men in lycra' or 'hate cyclists with earphones' - just say f&&& em. We've spent too long listening to middle-aged middle-class white men convinced that their own personal biases are actually meaningful.

Silent Running wrote: »

On the point of motorists killing cyclists: you only have to see pictures of a bike stuffed under a slow vehicle like a road sweeper to wonder who was speeding beyond their ability to stop.

A bit of realism and a lot less hysteria would go a long way towards a genuine conversation around how we could all do better.

Interesting - so you're able to jump to conclusions based on pictures of the aftermath and decide to blame the victim from there. Do you take the same victim-blaming approach in other aspects of life? If you see pictures of the short-skirt and high boots worn by the rape victim, do you jump to conclusions about the cause of the rape from there?

_Dara_ wrote: »

Nah, it’s a gussied up rant.

“People shouldn’t wear things that I don’t like!”. A grown adult (I assume) wrote that. Oh my.

It really is quite bizarre. It doesn't take much analysis to take it apart. You could just simply point to the number of non-cycling men who wear lycra for other reasons, mostly joggers or footballers. Are we supposed to despise them too? Or you could simply point to the number of women who wear lycra, many of whom don't have traditional hour-glass figures, so the lycra ends up being a bit non-flattering for those who want to judge on such things. Are we supposed to despise everyone in lycra who isn't a size 6 model with tiny bones and no flesh?
You'd really have to wonder about what extreme level of self-entitlement you'd have to build up to expect other people to based their clothing choices around your personal biases.

Rennaws wrote: »

Just read most of the thread and have a few comments..

Some or all may have already been made but..

- Just cause someone is sitting in a car doesn’t mean they’re not fit. Cyclists don’t have a monopoly on being fit. It could even be one of your fellow sportsmen.

- Weirdly I have no problem with cyclists in normal gear but I despise cyclists in lycra. I’m sure there’s some deep and meaningful reason for that but I know I’m not alone. Cyclists in lycra look like w@nkers.

- The groups of cyclists out our way every weekend have become a major nuisance. There are too many groups and too many in each group often deliberately making it difficult to get by them to prove a point while the rest of us try and get on about our business.

- For the vast majority of us the road is a means of doing business. Cyclists treat it like their personal play space, particularly every weekend and it’s pissing drivers off. I volunteered as a CFR for 3 years and was often caught behind them on the way to a call. The roads are not for sport. Get out of the way or take it elsewhere.

- Why am I still looking at W’s sprayed all over the roads for the Wicklow 200. Again, these aren’t legal
road markings and may be confusing to others. It’s also graffiti. They should be removed immediately after the race but they’re still there a month later.

(And whomever runs the W200, windgates was lethal this year as the slowest cyclists were taking up the entire lane, so much so that I had a cyclist ask if he could undertake me about half way up the hill. I didn’t take issue but I did wonder what happened with the 1.5m rule. It obviously only applies when it suits cyclists.)

- As for cafe owners loving you, some do some don’t. Some rely on you, some don’t. Some places do a great fry but have to turn regulars away while you have you’re coffee and a scone if their lucky.

- With regard to attire, if I had a cafe i’d ban men in lycra. I don’t give a flying fluck if it’s sexist. You don’t see blokes leave a gym in it. Men in lycra look hideous and put other patrons off their food.

- the number of sportives and charity cycles is growing and needs to be culled way way back. Allow a couple of events a year, like rallying, and the rest should be done off the road. Again, roads are not a toy..

- FFS can those of you who are way too fat and unhealthy to cycle to the top of a hill, please dismount and walk your bike up. You’re a danger to your self and as you swing wildly left and right in your gargantuan effort to make it to the top. It’s dangerous for you as much as anything else..

- Defensive cycling seems to be the new thing and I get the need for it at times, especially in an urban environment, but it’s being misused everywhere now, even when it’s not needed at all. For example it’s not required on a 2 lane road especially as it’s going up hill and it’s usually a bunch of fat, slow and unfit men that are most guilty of it.

- Always needing to Cross the centre line on the road to pass a cyclist is a myth. There are numerous spots around me where it’s not the case so I assume it’s the same nationwide. Yet cyclists insist on riding in large groups and “taking the lane” so they can have a leisurely chat while a stream of cars trying to go about their business builds behind them.

Red light means stop. I see you all consistently brake all the lights around me including at a T junction and it’s lethal. I shouldn’t have to be always looking out for some gob****e on a bike when driving through a green light.

And finally the reason golf and other sports involving middle aged men don’t attract the same level of ire is because they’re not inconveniencing everyone else around then while enjoying their chosen sport. Cyclists out this way every weekend clearly get some kind of perverse enjoyment out of that aspect of it.. I’ve personally witnessed a group of 50 plus year old men give some poor young lady the finger for daring to bip them when they well deserved it because they were being dicks..

I could spend an hour dissecting this, pointing out the logical inconsistencies, but life's too short. Let's not pretend that your concerns have anything to do with road safety. If you had any genuine concern for road safety, you'd be looking at the real root causes of deaths on our road - the motorists who kill three or four people each week and maim many more. And let's not pretend that 'roads are mainly for doing business'. Roads are for everyone, whether they are doing exercise, or going to the pub, or going to visit their mammy or going to work. You don't get to judge the relative importance of other people's road usage.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Where they shouldn't be ? I commute from out of the city to Heuston daily and so spend a lot of time getting from the station to my workplace.

Examples ? Okay:

Pavements (Eustace St (side street linking Dame St to Temple Bar (very narrow); York Street (knocked over leaving my building), St Stephen's Green Shopping Centre and very stupidly the narrow pavement next door to College Green - at speed).

LUAS platforms (viewed/interacted with - at Dawson, Westmoreland, St Stephen's Green (GL) and Smithfield, Museum, Heuston (RL).

Train platforms (Few times on the 6/7/8/ platforms at Heuston; mainly Portlaoise - cyclist also rides through the ticket office and dumps bike on floor of carriage. Several complaints ignored - I suspect a relative of the staff.)

Pedestrianised areas (mainly Millennium Quarter heading to Jervis)

Pedestrianised bridges (I was made to fell over avoiding cyclist crossing the Millennium Bridge)

Wrong way up a one way street (half a dozen outside my window just this morning - there's a Dublin Bikes stand at the top end, the legal and sensible thing is to go round the one way system).

Through red lights (innumerable to mention - Dame St/Sth Great Georges Street is worst example I've seen

These are all since about Easter break.

I'm expecting the usual deflection, denial, motorist bashing and "snort yeah they happened" mockery but they did.

I have no doubt that the majority of cyclists do not behave like that - but when the good ones defend the bad no matter what and blame other people, then it is hard to separate the two.

TL:DR - a cyclist performed an illegal operation in an area they were not meant to be and in trying to avoid being hit, I stumbled due to my medical condition. How can anyone defend that behaviour or blame me ?

Isn't it amazing how, for all these near-death experiences that people experience just so regularly with cyclists, it is more than 15 years since a cyclist killed a pedestrian in Ireland. In that time, motorists have killed more than 4,000 people on our roads, currently an average of 3-4 people every week. But yeah, cyclists are the priority road-safety issue of our time. PS That's the mockery you were expecting, just in case it wasn't clear.

whisky_galore wrote: »

Just stay alert to the traffic around you, I fcuking hate cyclists zoned out with earphones in, cyclists with no hands on the handlebars or in one case a lad having his dog run alongside his bike with the lead in one hand!

Presumably, you also fcuking hate motorists zoned out listening to Joe Duffy, or AC/DC or JayZ or whatever else is on their stereo, right? And you also fcuking hate motorists with no hands on the wheel while rolling a cigarette (like the young man who overtook me a couple of weeks back who was highly offended that anyone would question his driving skills), or the office girl eating cereal from a bowl with a spoon while driving, or the yummy mummy balancing a small bucket of skinny latté at the wheel while driving, or the granny nuzzling the small dog sitting on her lap while driving - all while they're supposed to be responsible for a lethal piece of machinery that kills three or four people each week.

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You do remember that basic bit of good driving practice (and indeed of traffic law) about being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear, right?

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What does cyclists much good is to shine a very bright light on the root cause of deaths on the roads - the motorists who kill and maim three or four people each week on the roads.