nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

shakeitoff

Every weekend, they swarm around, what is it about cycling that brings them in? Why aren't they playing weekend footie or mountain biking?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

magicbastarder

this is in relation to the number of secondary students cycling, not to numbers driving (as opposed to being driven):

The 25 years, from 1986 to 2011, saw an 87 per cent decrease in the numbers cycling to secondary school. 2016 saw the reversal of this trend with a 10.5 per cent increase since 2011, bringing the numbers of secondary students taking to their bikes to over 7,000. Over 90 per cent of these student cyclists were male, but the number of female cyclists has grown by over 30 per cent since 2011.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp6ci/p6cii/p6stp/

seamus

meeeeh wrote: »

The proper club rides (cyclists with competitive licence) have support vehicle with orange light although that might not be always used.

That's a race. A standard club training ride; which is 99.9% of what you see on the road; doesn't include a support vehicle.

Smaller 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.

General guidelines are a maximum of 10-12 riders per group; two abreast that's about the same length and width as a small bus.

Groups are generally encouraged to ride two abreast regardless of their size. This improves visibility and discourages dangerous overtaking. Where traffic has built up or the road is narrow, they should ride single file to allow traffic to pass, if it is safe to do so.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is in relation to the number of secondary students cycling, not to numbers driving (as opposed to being driven):

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cp6ci/p6cii/p6stp/

from the same link - though not broken down by sex - just over 5,000 secondary school students drove themselves to school.
that's bananas, the numbers cycling is not much higher.

[Deleted User]

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Quick question, despite my intentions not to go down this particular warren - is there ever a scenario where, given incontrovertible proof of wrongdoing - where you would accept a cyclist caused bodily harm, life changing injuries and/or death ?

Or would you merely shrug and point out that in your opinion cars are worse ? You know - actually answer the point without deflection.

The whole basis of my argument is factual evidence. Public policy should not be based on anecdotal stories, regardless of how loudly they are shouted or how often they are repeated. They should be based on facts and evidence.
So of course, the answer is Yes - there are cases where cyclists caused bodily harm, life changing injuries or death. In Ireland, the last case of a cyclist causing death was more than 15 years ago. In the UK, cyclists cause 1 or 2 deaths each year, compared to 1700-ish deaths by motorists. Those facts will help you understand the relative risks involved.
I haven't seen anyone here defending dangerous behaviour by cyclists, which does indeed happen. What I have seen is people challenging the obsessive focus on 'dangerous cyclists' that ignores the real danger on the roads - the motorists who kill three or four people each week and maim many more. Indeed, most of those obsessing about dangerous cyclists are indeed dangerous motorists.
I'd challenge any of those who are whinging about cyclists who break red lights to tell me that they've never broken a speed limit on the road. I'd challenge any of those who are whinging about all the ninja cyclists that they see on the road (see what I did there) to tell me that they've never driven with a broken tail light or brake light for days or weeks. I'd challenge all of those who are whinging about cyclists two abreast taking up the whole road to tell me that they've never driven with an empty armchair beside them and an empty coach beside them.
This isn't a safety debate. This is a personal prejudice, possibly one of few remaining socially acceptable personal prejudices wrapped up on flimsy layer of safety concern.

The Kop wrote: »

He's definitely on the wind up.

And yet, you've still not found anything that you can actually argue or disagree with. If your best option is personal attack, it's a fair bet that I'm on the right track.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

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.

You're not a cyclist either, but that hasn't stopped you commenting quite a lot about cycling - so why the reticence to face up to the reality of dangerous driving. The RSA picked up 82% of motorists breaking speed lmiits in one of their recent speed surveys, so please explain to me again how this amazing registration system stops drivers from breaking the law?
Which do you hear more Garda appeals for - dangerous drivers or dangerous cyclists?

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.

I'm not wound up at all. I'm not insulting people. I'm not telling people what they should be wearing.
I am directly and patiently challenging the myths around dangerous cycling with facts and evidence.
Have you noticed what gets results in Ireland today? Did the water protestors have the right 'tone'? Did the repeal protestors have the right 'tone'? I'm done with tugging my forelock to the speeding/texting motorists asking them nicely to please not kill me today.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

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 ?

Where specifically did any cyclist here defend the actions of dangerous cyclists?

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Hmm. Wearing a uniform, travelling in formation, and getting angry at perceived opponents? Can’t think of another parallel to that, now [IMG]file:///C:\Users\Admin\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.gif[/IMG]

Ah here, don't be having a go at rugby players now. Is nothing sacred?

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.

No, many don't wear face covers - just another of your over-dramatic exaggerations that expose your personal bias. There is probably a tiny, valid point somewhere at the very bottom of your ranting, but you dress it up in so many exaggerations that it's hard to see the wood from the trees.

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.

Most good drivers understand why single file is more dangerous for everybody - because you don't have enough visibility to commit to safely overtaking a large group in single file. Anne Doyle explains it well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJiixtKuVq8

Rennaws wrote: »

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.

Yeah, we have a very good idea of how many injuries are caused every year by cyclists, whether they are breaking the law or not - very few.
Serious injuries are recorded in hospitals or by GPs. If an injury is not recorded in hospital or by a GP, it's not a serious injury. Studies of hospital records show that in the overall scheme of things, injuries caused by cyclists are insignificant - a drop in the ocean.

Rennaws wrote: »

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

If you haven't heard about 'dashcams', you should check out this thread:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057839970
You'll find thousands of videos recorded by motorists on Irish roads, so no, cameras are not the preserve of cyclists.

meeeeh

seamus wrote: »

That's a race. A standard club training ride; which is 99.9% of what you see on the road; doesn't include a support vehicle.
General guidelines are a maximum of 10-12 riders per group; two abreast that's about the same length and width as a small bus.

Groups are generally encouraged to ride two abreast regardless of their size. This improves visibility and discourages dangerous overtaking. Where traffic has built up or the road is narrow, they should ride single file to allow traffic to pass, if it is safe to do so.

I was not talking about the rules in Ireland, competitive cyclists doing group training are accompanied by a vehicle in Slovenia. As said unless you are overtaking or are part of before mentioned group cycling two abreast is frowned upon and I think illegal on main roads.

I cycled in both countries and I know which I prefer.

The Bishop Basher

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, many don't wear face covers - just another of your over-dramatic exaggerations that expose your personal bias. There is probably a tiny, valid point somewhere at the very bottom of your ranting

I didn't mention face covers and i'm sorry if you felt that I needed to expose my personal bias. I would have thought that was clear from the initial thread.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Most good drivers understand why single file is more dangerous for everybody - because you don't have enough visibility to commit to safely overtaking a large group in single file.

Yeah yeah yeah, thanks for the condescending driving lesson. I'm regularly held up when it's not necessary which was the point i was making. Bikes are slower. They will hold us up from time to time. But when done needlessly and indeed, more often lately to illicit a reaction, that's not ok.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, we have a very good idea of how many injuries are caused every year by cyclists, whether they are breaking the law or not - very few.
Serious injuries are recorded in hospitals or by GPs. If an injury is not recorded in hospital or by a GP, it's not a serious injury. Studies of hospital records show that in the overall scheme of things, injuries caused by cyclists are insignificant - a drop in the ocean.

OK so we know not too many serious injuries are happening.. what about all the other injuries

Do we just ignore them because they're not cyclists or what ?

seamus

meeeeh wrote: »

I was not talking about the rules in Ireland, competitive cyclists doing group training are accompanied by a vehicle in Slovenia. As said unless you are overtaking or are part of before mentioned group cycling two abreast is frowned upon and I think illegal on main roads.

I cycled in both countries and I know which I prefer.

It's funny how we tend to prefer the things we're used to

In terms of cyclist deaths per head of population, Slovenia is 3-4 times more dangerous for cyclists than Ireland. So probably not a model to base our laws on.

Lambay island

Rennaws wrote: »

I didn't mention face covers and i'm sorry if you felt that I needed to expose my personal bias. I would have thought that was clear from the initial thread.

Yeah yeah yeah, thanks for the condescending driving lesson. I'm regularly held up when it's not necessary which was the point i was making. Bikes are slower. They will hold us up from time to time. But when done needlessly and indeed, more often lately to illicit a reaction, that's not ok.

OK so we know not too many serious injuries are happening.. what about all the other injuries

Do we just ignore them because they're not cyclists or what ?

So u think some people go out for a cycle just to illicit a reaction in someone driving a car? A lot of self importance going on in that thought process and a contributing reason to unnecessary injuries and deaths. You would not get a second thought of anyone on a bike unless you put someones life at risk.

[Deleted User]

Rennaws wrote: »

I didn't mention face covers and i'm sorry if you felt that I needed to expose my personal bias. I would have thought that was clear from the initial thread.

That response was directed at the post quoted immediately above it - not yours. There was a slight misquoting error, which I've fixed now. Apologies if that caused any confusion.

Rennaws wrote: »

Yeah yeah yeah, thanks for the condescending driving lesson. I'm regularly held up when it's not necessary which was the point i was making. Bikes are slower. They will hold us up from time to time. But when done needlessly and indeed, more often lately to illicit a reaction, that's not ok.

I'm regularly held up by motorists when it's not necessary when I'm cycling in the city. Bikes are faster than cars in heavy urban traffic. I don't throw a mickey-fit about it though. I just wait for safe place to pass. It's called traffic. Other people get to use the road too. If you want roads with no-one on them, you'd better get up a 4am or build your own roads on your own land.

It's really mind-blowing how much time drivers happily spend stuck in traffic staring at the arse-end of the car in front, but put them behind a cyclist for a few seconds and all hell breaks loose.

Rennaws wrote: »

OK so we know not too many serious injuries are happening.. what about all the other injuries

Do we just ignore them because they're not cyclists or what ?

Let's not ignore them - let's compare them to the non-serious injuries caused by motorists, and the non-serious injuries caused by wasps, and the non-serious injuries caused by vending machines - and let's see what are the serious issues in the non-serious injuries category. It's just amazing how some people have an obsessive focus on injuries caused by cycling, despite a total lack of context.

meeeeh

seamus wrote: »

It's funny how we tend to prefer the things we're used to

In terms of cyclist deaths per head of population, Slovenia is 3-4 times more dangerous for cyclists than Ireland. So probably not a model to base our laws on.

There are also a lot more cyclists in Slovenia but I would like to see your statistics. I'm mot disputing that driving culture is absolutely awful and is being tackled with very high speeding fines that are collated by revenue. Anyway I found data for 2016. 13 cyclists died, mostly men over 45, mostly in urban areas, 60% the accidents where cyclist died were caused by cyclist, 3 deaths involved drunk cyclist. Percentage of drunk cycling is about the same as percentage of drunk driving but higher level of alcohol in blood. 1 child under 14 died.

You can quote some suspicious data but I wouldn't let my 9 year old cycle to school here, I would have no problem doing in there and an awful lot of kids do cycle to school.

The Bishop Basher

Lambay island wrote: »

So u think some people go out for a cycle just to illicit a reaction in someone driving a car?

Some groups enjoy doing it while out for a spin, yes..

Lambay island wrote: »

A lot of self importance going on in that thought process and and a contributing reason to unnecessary injuries and deaths. You would not get a second thought of anyone on a bike unless you put someones life at risk.

But how do you know ? Who are you to tell me my experience is wrong..

I haven't had a close shave or an encounter with a bike and a car since I flew over the bonnet of Mrs Flynn's Nissan aged 10 when I hit her quarter panel as she drove out her gate, on my Raleigh Burner.. I was cycling on the path too :eek:

Seriously.. Oh there was one moron on a bike at a roundabout who shouted obscenities at me for no good reason but i just assumed he was a bit mad. We have a few of them out this way..

Fact is, I witness these cyclists every weekend because unfortunately I live in an area that attracts them and the number of cyclists acting in a manner that is clearly designed to obstruct and frustrate motorists has increased significantly in recent months.

I'm genuinely easy going in nature and i'm not usually in a rush as I design my life so as not to be..

But when grown men are acting like dicks just for the sake of it, it can be difficult not to get pissed off and at times, tar all cyclists with the same brush..

You don't have to believe me but you have no way of proving me wrong either so hey ho..

Alf Veedersane

I heard their menstruation attracts bears.

Plasid

barney shamrock wrote: »

Road tax!
Lycra!
Tour de France wannabes cycling 3 abreast!
Etc, etc

BINGO!

[Deleted User]

Rennaws wrote: »

Some groups enjoy doing it while out for a spin, yes..

How do you know that they enjoy doing it?

Rennaws wrote: »

But how do you know ? Who are you to tell me my experience is wrong..

...
You don't have to believe me but you have no way of proving me wrong either so hey ho..

If you are in any doubt about the prevalence of bad driving on Irish roads, just start watching a few of these videos;

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057839970

There's thousands of them there, showing dickish and dangerous driving on Irish roads - the kind of stuff we all see every day of the week. But some of us choose to not notice the two or three drivers that push through the red light after it has changed, or the drivers with the phone in their hand or at their ear (we're in 2nd worst position on the European league table of mobile phone abuse) or the drivers breaking the speed limit.

That's the great thing about these debates. We don't need to prove your personal experience wrong. We just look at the independently collected data and evidence and we can see exactly where the danger on Irish roads comes from.

07Lapierre

Plasid wrote: »

BINGO!

Ah here...that's an activity for old age, not middle age!

Podge_irl

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.

A smallish car like a Megane has a width of 1.7m. Assuming the cyclist isn't cycling at the literal edge of the road then you would need, let's say, 0.5m+1.5m+1.7m = 3.7m of road width to pass legally above 50km/h. Motorways in Ireland have a lane width of 3.5-3.75m.

I just do not really believe that there are multiple roads in Ireland were you can legally pass a cyclist without crossing the white line. I think, more likely, people are misjudging how wide 1.5m really is.

I have no issue with a greater focus on cyclist education - do it early as part of initiatives to get kids cycling. I have no problem with greater enforcement of the rules of the road either. I just find the degree of opprobrium leveled at cyclists to be utterly bizarrely disproportionate.

monkeybutter

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..

and then they have a number identifying the car and a picture of a face which is feck all use unless they can find some way of identifying the face as well

Maybe we should all have numbers stamped on our foreheads, to ya know, identify us

P_1

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

wall of bloody text.

Hang on where did I mention we need to tug our forelock to anyone?

All I'm saying is that there are some fcuking lemmings out there on bikes who need to be educated on how not to a) get themselves killed and b) not to injure other cyclists.

No amount of shouting for better infrastructure is going to fix that.

magicbastarder

Podge_irl wrote: »

A smallish car like a Megane has a width of 1.7m.

actually over a foot wider - the current model has a stated width of 2,058mm, including door mirrors. even without mirrors, it's 1,814mm.

The Bishop Basher

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How do you know that they enjoy doing it?

By their behaviour and reactions..

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you are in any doubt about the prevalence of bad driving on Irish roads,

I'm going to stop you right there. I'm not in any doubt at all. The standard of driving in Ireland is atrocious.

We're talking about cycling.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

If cycling infrastructure was better i'd imagine cycling behaviour would be better. I'm a non-motorist and occasional cyclist and cyclists are my least favourite group with whom to share the road (or footpath, or wherever they feel like being at any given moment) in an urban setting, more evenly split when I'm home up the country.

Like another poster above I come from an area which attracts a lot of weekend cyclists and races. A few years ago it'd gotten completely out of hand, the area had managed with a mix of local, agricultural and tourist traffic for decades and the cyclists made sh1t of the situation over about two years.

Now these weren't "people who cycle a bike" these were very much cyclists. Head cams. Probably get Christmas presents of mugs that awkwardly try to crowbar the words "dad" "cycling" and "coffee" into the same pun. Probably post on cycling forums. Middle aged, middle class, male and obnoxious. The amount of dangerous and aggressive driving I saw from them before and after races was crazy too.

Anyways, the local councils sorted it out eventually. And like I say I cycle myself, don't want to tar everyone with the same brush.

The multi-quoting, "well ackshully", wagon circling defensiveness from cyclists here doesn't do a huge amount to win people over btw.

Podge_irl

Ellie Hallowed Acorn wrote: »

Anyways, the local councils sorted it out eventually.

How?

amcalester

Ellie Hallowed Acorn wrote: »

The amount of dangerous and aggressive driving I saw from them before and after races was crazy too.

So now cyclists are at fault for the actions of motorists?

Bit harsh.

It's not the mode of transport that's the issue, it's the person being a dick.

Plasid

aroundthehouse wrote: »

ah now, so i'm supposed to go driving around just because a bunch of cyclists decide to block the doorway of my local service station?

Better yet walk or cycle for a coffee, great exercise, and you don't have to wear the Lycra unless you really want to!

Plasid

Silent Running wrote: »

I drive mostly on windy country roads with solid white centre lines for many kilometres. Just last week I came up behind this guy on a bike and stayed back a bit, as we were approaching a blind bend. When he got far enough into the bend to see round, he beckoned me to pass. I nearly fell out of the open window. I was gobsmacked. In many, many years of driving, this was the first act of courtesy I have ever experienced from a cyclist.

After I passed, I gave him a quick flick of the hazards in thanks and he lifted a hand in return. The warm fuzzy feeling stayed with me for a while.

We can all get along on the road, but it's literally and figuratively a two way street. Some time ago, I read a comment from a cyclist on this forum. The topic was something like road positioning or similar. He said he never gives an inch on the road, "not an inch" for emphasis. As a driver, I give an inch, foot, yard or whatever it takes to be safe, or courteous, or both!

This...

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

amcalester wrote: »

So now cyclists are at fault for the actions of motorists?

Bit harsh.

It's not the mode of transport that's the issue, it's the person being a dick.

Yes and if the person being a dick has two bikes attached to their car and after several miles of speeding and attempting to overtake dangerously on bendy country roads, that person gets out of the car and starts removing the bikes while talking loudly about how thank God they made it in time for the bike race, I actually feel pretty ok about saying "that cyclist was driving like a prick". Ditto if someone attaches a bike to a car after one of said races, gets in the car and takes off driving aggressively.

Edit: and also if they have the same face and voice as the guy who's been ****eing on in the pub all weekend about the race and personal bests and sure amn't I mad. Slightly less firm ground in that one maybe, it could be his evil motorist twin I suppose.

magicbastarder

Ellie Hallowed Acorn wrote: »

Head cams.

you mean helmet mounted cameras?

Victor

I wonder if posts 1 and 3 are related.

ewc78

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I heard their menstruation attracts bears.

I read this first as 'their masterbation attracts bears'