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

PlaneSpeeking · 24-07-2018 10:36AM

Podge_irl wrote: »

I think you probably underestimate the amount of hit & runs where the driver gets away scot free (including, for example, the time one opened the door into the cycle lane on me then drove off) or, in general, the amount of motoring offenses that go unpunished. I think you are also bizarrely unlucky when it comes to cyclists. The offending individual in your case was a twat, clearly and there is unfortunately no shortage of them. But there is no evidence that there is an epidemic of accidents caused by cyclists. The attitude towards it seems way out of proportion to reality.

The defensiveness people feel probably stems from the fact that a significant minority of people on the road get angry beyond all reasonable limits at a slight delay on the road due to a cyclist and unfortunately those people are in a position to seriously injure or kill me...

I'm not a motorist and so I can't comment on that, only as a long suffering pedestrian but of course there are motorists who shouldn't be on the road - but there is a huge chance their number plate is legit and they can be apprehended. With the cyclist who caused my injury (and the one I witnessed) once they had left there was zero consequence, nothing - what description could I give ? Bike, red - man, white, possibly 30s ? Even if I was sure of those, no way can anyone be identified.

It just annoys the life out of me that my safety is somehow made a punchline by some posters on here.

P_1 · 24-07-2018 10:39AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Though yet again, you seem unable to identify any factual error in anything I've said.

Just in case you missed my point above:

I got it loud and clear. However it is failing. Ross views us as cranks and the vitriol from drivers is getting worse. Remember Einstein's definition of insanity? Getting wound up causes more harm than good. If you want to get the blood pumping hop on the bike and head for Kippure.

seamus · 24-07-2018 10:48AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

but there is a huge chance their number plate is legit and they can be apprehended.

Realistically, "huge" is overplaying it.

There's a good chance the number plate is legit, there's an incredibly slim chance that anyone will have had the presence of mind or eyesight to capture it before it disappeared off into the distance.

Then all you get is "Car - Black, some kind of SUV, maybe 11-D-something". Zero chance of identification.

Don't believe me? Every other weekend there's a call out on national radio for someone who's been hit by a car which has left the scene and Gardai are appealing for anyone with information to come forward.

Number plates aren't nearly as useful an identifier as they're touted. Good for routine scans and identification. For catching someone fleeing the scene? Pretty useless, unless the plate falls off in the collision.

PlaneSpeeking · 24-07-2018 10:49AM

P_1 wrote: »

I got it loud and clear. However it is failing. Ross views us as cranks and the vitriol from drivers is getting worse. Remember Einstein's definition of insanity? Getting wound up causes more harm than good. If you want to get the blood pumping hop on the bike and head for Kippure.

Agreed. More harm than good being done as I said.

The more good anything - cyclists, or whatever group - continue to vehemently defend the actions of EVERY member of their community - the more reasonable people will start to tar everyone with the same brush.

Start by accepting that when someone reports an incident that they are doing so to highlight an issue. It's not personal.

There are some lousy, dangerous, cyclists out there who care nothing for anyone else. They are a minority. But they exist. Defending them blindly helps no one, least of all the cycling community.

I really don't see why this is not apparent ?

PlaneSpeeking · 24-07-2018 10:50AM

seamus wrote: »

Realistically, "huge" is overplaying it.

There's a good chance the number plate is legit, there's an incredibly slim chance that anyone will have had the presence of mind or eyesight to capture it before it disappeared off into the distance.

Then all you get is "Car - Black, some kind of SUV, maybe 11-D-something". Zero chance of identification.

Don't believe me? Every other weekend there's a call out on national radio for someone who's been hit by a car which has left the scene and Gardai are appealing for anyone with information to come forward.

Number plates aren't nearly as useful an identifier as they're touted. Good for routine scans and identification. For catching someone fleeing the scene? Pretty useless, unless the plate falls off in the collision.

CCTV, number plate recognition software, dash cams from other vehicles - all can be used to identify a car.

Lord Glentoran · 24-07-2018 10:51AM

Hmm. Wearing a uniform, travelling in formation, and getting angry at perceived opponents? Can’t think of another parallel to that, now

whisky_galore · 24-07-2018 10:53AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

CCTV, number plate recognition software, dash cams from other vehicles - all can be used to identify a car.

That's fine assuming the powers-that-be are arsed about following it up.

PlaneSpeeking · 24-07-2018 10:55AM

whisky_galore wrote: »

That's fine assuming the powers-that-be are arsed about following it up.

Fair point and chances are - no.

There was actually (miracle of miracles) a Guard in the vicinity when I was injured.

Didn't even help me up!!!! Other pedestrians did that and a dismounted cyclist offered me a hanky! Bless him!!!

seamus · 24-07-2018 10:58AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

There are some lousy, dangerous, cyclists out there who care nothing for anyone else. They are a minority. But they exist. Defending them blindly helps no one, least of all the cycling community.

I really don't see why this is not apparent ?

Nobody really defends it though.

The exasperation is "WTF do you expect other cyclists to do about it?"

This is why when you go on a rant about cyclist behaviour; the response is to point out how drivers do the exact same thing. Because having a rant at cyclists about the behaviour of other cyclists is as useful as ranting at drivers about the behaviour of other drivers.

I cycle and I refuse to accept any blame or pointless sanction because some other idiots can't act responsibly. I am no more a member of a "cyclist community" than you are a member of a "pedestrian community".

Enforce the rules of the road, and the problem goes away.

seamus · 24-07-2018 11:00AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

CCTV, number plate recognition software, dash cams from other vehicles - all can be used to identify a car.

If they happen to be recording the vehicle at the time of the accident. Which, is very unlikely.

Cyclists by virtue of not being in a metal box are much more readily identifiable. So in a similar situation, if a camera pointed at an accident can capture a clear number plate, then it will also capture a lovely clear image of the cyclist's face..

Boom_Bap · 24-07-2018 11:01AM

It's up to the individual cycling, driving, gliding, skating, hovering, bob sledding, motocrossing, skydiving, ziplining, horse riding to account for their own actions while doing so.

The Bishop Basher · 24-07-2018 11:06AM

Podge_irl wrote: »

Cyclists cycling two abreast is irritating. But it is also legal and safe. Cyclists "taking the road" can be irritating but it is also legal and safe. The impatience and irrational outright hostility that cyclists engender in some odd cohort of drivers is significantly more dangerous.

I agree with you on the first 2 points. I even agree with your third point to some extent. I think the problem lies in the middle somewhere..

I see cyclists cycle 2 abreast and take the road so often now in spots where it's just not necessary and if they only had the courtesy to cycle in single file for that stretch it would mean cars could get passed while leaving 1.5 meters and barely touching the white line. But the groups have grown so large and are so often full of amateurs who don't know what they're doing.

You can tell the really experienced riders.. They move at pace and never obstruct you unecassarily in my experience.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

The difference being that if injured by a car you can identify the driver usually, and there will be consequences. Not with the idiot who caused my fall. Away scot free to do it again and be defended by people.

This is a critical point in this debate..

We have no idea how many injuries are caused every year by cyclists breaking the law

Why, probably because we don't all run off to the nearest Garda station like they do because what's the point ? Unless you live in a country village with a population of 10, it's extremely unlikely they'll catch the culprit anyway. We also don't go around with cameras on our heads. That's a reserve of cyclists.

PlaneSpeeking · 24-07-2018 11:07AM

seamus wrote: »

Nobody really defends it though.

The exasperation is "WTF do you expect other cyclists to do about it?"

This is why when you go on a rant about cyclist behaviour; the response is to point out how drivers do the exact same thing. Because having a rant at cyclists about the behaviour of other cyclists is as useful as ranting at drivers about the behaviour of other drivers.

I cycle and I refuse to accept any blame or pointless sanction because some other idiots can't act responsibly.

Enforce the rules of the road, and the problem goes away.

I do agree that, but it is the METHOD of pointing it out - you and P_1 and others accept there are a small number of d**heads on bikes out there but all you can do is the right thing yourselves and it is irritating to see "all cyclists are bad". (I'd never say that). I completely agree.

However, other who continually make fun of posts noting bad behaviour and openly mock injuries are the problem.

Plus regarding enforcement - not long back I saw a Garda car parked up near the top end of College Green citing drivers and cyclists breaking the law.

Colleague came in ranting that it was a waste of time and he'd been fined - I pointed out that he routinely ran red lights "not all the time, I stopped at one the other day. F***ing jobsworths".

Can't win but I agree enforcement should continue.

PlaneSpeeking · 24-07-2018 11:07AM

seamus wrote: »

If they happen to be recording the vehicle at the time of the accident. Which, is very unlikely.

Cyclists by virtue of not being in a metal box are much more readily identifiable. So in a similar situation, if a camera pointed at an accident can capture a clear number plate, then it will also capture a lovely clear image of the cyclist's face..

Not so, the one who hit me had something on his face like Bane from one of the Batman films and many wear face covers.

RacoonQueen · 24-07-2018 11:08AM

dense wrote: »

Of course its not the fault of the cyclist.

But so what? The cyclist not being at fault is not going to bring them back from a fatal and possibly avoidable collision. Avoidable if they hadnt thought "well it wont be my fault whatever happens, I'm entitled to cycle up along a type of vehicle where I know there's a big risk".

You're entirely missing my point.

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 ?

The post I quoted about where they shouldn't be was about cyclists going up the inside of vehicles. So all the places you're listing as where they shouldn't be is not relatable at all to my point. Impressive effort though.
Have you ever seen cars/other mother vehicles break red lights, go up one way streets or go into pedestrianised areas btw? Be shocked if you haven't. Not something that is unique to some assholes on bikes but you never hear people complain about other doing this with the same vitriol as they do about bikes.

PlaneSpeeking · 24-07-2018 11:08AM

Rennaws wrote: »

I agree with you on the first 2 points. I even agree with your third point to some extent. I think the problem lies in the middle somewhere..

I see cyclists cycle 2 abreast and take the road so often now in spots where it's just not necessary and if they only had the courtesy to cycle in single file for that stretch it would mean cars could get passed while leaving 1.5 meters and barely touching the white line. But the groups have grown so large and are so often full of amateurs who don't know what they're doing.

You can tell the really experienced riders.. They move at pace and never obstruct you unecassarily in my experience.

This is a critical point in this debate..

We have no idea how many injuries are caused every year by cyclists breaking the law

Why, probably because we don't all run off to the nearest Garda station like they do because what's the point ? Unless you live in a country village with a population of 10, it's extremely unlikely they'll catch the culprit anyway. We also don't go around with cameras on our heads. That's a reserve of cyclists.

+1

PlaneSpeeking · 24-07-2018 11:10AM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

You're entirely missing my point.

The post I quoted about where they shouldn't be was about cyclists going up the inside of vehicles. So all the places you're listing as where they shouldn't be is not relatable at all to my point. Impressive effort though.

The effort is avoiding injury - not the reporting.

Actually while I've been stood for 2 minutes waiting to see my boss - three cyclists have gone the wrong way up the one way street, two on the pavement.

It's not hard to spot. It's hard to stop.

07Lapierre · 24-07-2018 11:11AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

The effort is avoiding injury - not the reporting.

Actually while I've been stood for 2 minutes waiting to see my boss - three cyclists have gone the wrong way up the one way street, two on the pavement.

It's not hard to spot. It's hard to stop.

We're they middle aged lads? if not we've gone way off topic.

RacoonQueen · 24-07-2018 11:14AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

The effort is avoiding injury - not the reporting.

Actually while I've been stood for 2 minutes waiting to see my boss - three cyclists have gone the wrong way up the one way street, two on the pavement.

It's not hard to spot. It's hard to stop.

My parents live on a one way street just outside the city centre. Cars go the wrong way up it constantly and nearly wreck all the parked cars as there is no space for them to manoeuvre around the corner. Likewise, not hard to spot it's a one way street yet they all claim they 'didn't know'. There is a no left turn sign, a no right turn sign as well as handy road markings indicating it's a no entry yet still cars and vans go up all the time. Sometimes bikes do to.
However, still all irrelevant to the post of mine you quoted which wasn't about any of these things, again, I was quoting someone saying going up the side of vehicles was cyclists going somewhere they 'shouldn't'.

RacoonQueen · 24-07-2018 11:15AM

07Lapierre wrote: »

We're they middle aged lads? if not we've gone way off topic.

And were they on racing bikes, wearing lycra?
And did he look at their crotch?

PlaneSpeeking · 24-07-2018 11:16AM

Tired of the sarcasm and excuses from some, I'm out.

seamus · 24-07-2018 11:19AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Not so, the one who hit me had something on his face like Bane from one of the Batman films and many wear face covers.

And I drove behind a car the other day that had a filter on his number plate to evade cameras.

We can come up with all sorts of counter-examples all day long, but it doesn't disprove my point; number plates are no use in identifying a hit-and-run driver except in a bare minority of cases. If a bike had a tiny plate on it, you still wouldn't be able to identify it.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

However, other who continually make fun of posts noting bad behaviour and openly mock injuries are the problem.

They're mocked on two fronts:

1. They're pointless rants with no message except, "If you ride a bike you must be a deviant and you should be jailed".

2. They're usually just cranks with a nonsensical belief that all cyclists are somehow part of a gang and are all interconnected. Case in point: "Cameras on the head are the reserve of cyclists". It makes the crank look like some guy in a darkened room banging furiously on a keyboard and looking angrily out the window at a world that would dare to exist outside of his acceptable boundaries.

meeeeh · 24-07-2018 11:22AM

murpho999 wrote: »

You may think it's bollocks and bull **** but the truth is that if a cyclist breaks a red light, which I agree is totally wrong, they generally don't "barrel" through as you put it but generally do so with some caution.

Either way, they will come the worst off in a collision in all cases.

That's the way the law is in The Netherlands and it's quite logical if you think about it.

Cycling facilities are also a lot better and often separated in Holland. Which makes a lot safer and easier to spot a cyclist.

I think cycling is great but I don't think good enough facilities are provided in Ireland and they are also not regulated properly. I think group rides should have car accompanying them, I'm not mad about two abreast cycling (it's illegal where I come from and cycling is a lot more common there and facilities are better) and in general rules of the road should be obeyed a bit more. Btw my 10 years old niece cycles to the school about 2-3 km on local roads but she actually had to do a cycling test where she was taught how to indicate, about road signs, basic skills and so on. It's a lot easier where certain cycling culture is nourished since childhood. There are still too many accidents there, up to recently driving behaviour was awful but heavy fines improved that.

If red light jumping is such a problem then maybe heavy fines could solve that for cars and cyclists (not only offenders, I came accross morons pushing the buggy crossing the road 50m away from the zebra crossing or crossing during red light with kids in tow.)

magicbastarder · 24-07-2018 11:24AM

Rennaws wrote: »

We also don't go around with cameras on our heads. That's a reserve of cyclists.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrqCk3H_fx3G6h45GloL4sw

lots of fun watching there!
(it's actually relatively tame compared to russian ones)

magicbastarder · 24-07-2018 11:28AM

meeeeh wrote: »

Btw my 10 years old niece cycles to the school about 2-3 km on local roads

fair play to her - something like 800 female secondary school pupils cycle to school in the entire country. i've seen a claim that more female pupils drive themselves to school than cycle, haven't seen the evidence to back that up yet though.

seamus · 24-07-2018 11:28AM

meeeeh wrote: »

I think group rides should have car accompanying them

Group rides having a car accompany them is unfeasible and doesn't really serve any purpose. Rather than having a group of cyclists who can stretch single file to allow traffic to pass, the road is now permanently blocked by the trailing vehicle, making it more difficult to overtake.

Also given that the majority of groups you see on the roads are ad-hoc meetups of friends, it's clearly impractical to require a support vehicle.

What purpose would it serve?

Very big groups, such as events or races typically have support vehicles for a number of purposes; mostly to do with assisting riders in trouble or ensuring the way is clear and slowing down the cyclists if necessary..

07Lapierre · 24-07-2018 11:28AM

RacoonQueen wrote: »

And were they on racing bikes, wearing lycra?
And did he look at their crotch?

Another reason Middle aged blokes have taken up cycling is the fact that it's so easy to integrate into your day. You don't have to go to a specific location either. Each cycle starts at your house and ends when you get back home. Also, You can go cycling in a group or on your own. It's hard to play a game of football on your own!

marvin80 · 24-07-2018 11:39AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

I've seen a claim that more female pupils drive themselves to school than cycle, haven't seen the evidence to back that up yet though.

If that's true I can see why we'll have plenty of issues in future with obesity:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/obesity-expert-on-landmark-moment-as-he-treats-unweighable-50stone-patient-37141770.html

meeeeh · 24-07-2018 11:42AM

seamus wrote: »

Group rides having a car accompany them is unfeasible and doesn't really serve any purpose. Rather than having a group of cyclists who can stretch single file to allow traffic to pass, the road is now permanently blocked by the trailing vehicle, making it more difficult to overtake.

Also given that the majority of groups you see on the roads are ad-hoc meetups of friends, it's clearly impractical to require a support vehicle.

What purpose would it serve?

Very big groups, such as events or races typically have support vehicles for a number of purposes; mostly to do with assisting riders in trouble or ensuring the way is clear and slowing down the cyclists if necessary..

The proper club rides (cyclists with competitive licence) have support vehicle with orange light although that might not be always used. They can drive two abreast. Smaller recreational groups are usually up to six people, single file, if group is bigger they space them out 6 at a time. it's a lot let less disruptive for traffic flow and probably also safer for cyclists because you avoid big pile ups.

Silent Running · 24-07-2018 11:43AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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?

I have to admit Andy that I didn't read the rest of your usual multiquote bollox, but I did read the reply directed at me.

So in answer: I didn't blame the driver of the road sweeper... oh wait, you were talking about the cyclist, weren't you? Of course, the cyclist is always the victim.... in your skewed world.

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

Comments