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

P_1

silverharp wrote: »

video him and make him famous

And tag the likes of Sticky Bottle, I Bike Dublin et al in it if you put it up on Twitter. Gobshiites like that who give the rest of us a bad name need to be named and shamed. I'm sick and tired of asshole cyclists being used as a stick to beat the rest of us up with

P_1

Silent Running wrote: »

The crap you see Andy and co. coming out with about motorists killing cyclists is very deliberate language to demonise drivers. Nobody sets out on their drive with the intention of killing anyone. The stance taken by this type of cyclist is designed to antagonise motorists and shut down any conciliatory discussion. In other words: the usual bullshlte.

I'm a motorist. I've huge mileage under my belt. I've never killed a cyclist. Therefore motorists never kill cyclists. Makes about as much sense as the stuff they come out with.

Here's another view: cycling is dangerous. It get's 3-4 people killed every week. It should be banned.

Until the paranoia and hysteria is taken out of the conversation, nothing will change.

The bull from a couple of posters here is best ignored, and I'm going to follow my own advice here and ignore them.

Agreed. Calm, rational and educational discourse (on both sides) is needed. Yes cars can cause more damage but shrilly shouting "murderer" at people isn't going to solve this mess.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

P_1

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wouldn't call them dangerous tbh, rather they are a reaction by people who are justifiably sick and tired of a lack of action by the powers that be to a woeful lack of enforcement of traffic laws.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

P_1

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No it isn't and you have the intelligence to cop that.

PlaneSpeeking

Agreed! And neither is Renko et al's other trick of a combo of denial, deflection and laughing.

The actions of the cyclist who hit me were deliberate. He may not have gone out with the intention of hitting a pedestrian but he was on a bridge, pavement and walkway he was not permitted to be on.

Could a car have injured me worse? Of course. But that does not diminish my pain, fear and scarring. I was mugged once - threw against a wall and bag grabbed. Could it have been worse ? Yes. Was it traumatic and painful? Yes.

Because something MIGHT be worse doesn't mitigate what happened.

Middle ground and rational discussion needs to be had on both sides. We all have valid points.

Silent Running

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again with the divisive comments?

Maybe they are right, in certain circumstances. Cities, and Dublin in particular, are no place for private cars. One person sitting in their car, taking up probably 15 square metre of road, in gridlock is plain stupid.

However stirring resentment by saying "their roads" makes you no better than Andy.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

jon1981

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Or the idiot who STILL insists on cycling through Portlaoise ticket office and on to the platform. He did it in front of two ticket inspectors just now.

Nothing will ever be done, I've tried.

I'm a cyclist and even I'd jab an umbrella between his spokes one morning!

( I'm also a motorist...maybe that's where my evil streak comes from

)

P_1

jon1981 wrote: »

I'm a cyclist and even I'd jab an umbrella between his spokes one morning!

( I'm also a motorist...maybe that's where my evil streak comes from )

I'd just deflate his tires

Silent Running

I'm happy to ignore bullcrap from both sides of the argument.

magicbastarder

i'd call into question his sartorial choices. hit him where it hurts.

magicbastarder

P_1 wrote: »

No it isn't and you have the intelligence to cop that.

he's kinda right. their end game *is* cars off 'their' roads. in that 'their' roads are the supposedly mandatory cycle lanes.
(lest there be any confusion, a mandatory cycle lane is one which cars are not allowed use - they deliberately pick these ones to police)

P_1

magicbastarder wrote: »

he's kinda right. their end game *is* cars off 'their' roads. in that 'their' roads are the supposedly mandatory cycle lanes.
(lest there be any confusion, a mandatory cycle lane is one which cars are not allowed use - they deliberately pick these ones to police)

A fair point. Though I think we can all agree that is not what he meant.

I do wonder if he's a constituent of a certain independent city councillor.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

P_1

Patww79 wrote: »

I wouldn't even have an inkling of who you mean if you're talking about a politician.

Ah fair enough. Was referring to Mannix Flynn. A gob****e of the highest order on many issues who has recently been spouting some quality manure in the subject of cycling.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

P_1

Patww79 wrote: »

I'd probably find I agree with most of what he says in fairness, though I'm not sure I want someone called Mannix fronting the war on cyclists

Tis quite the silly name alright

cfuserkildare

shakeitoff wrote: »

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

Why do you have an issue with this healthy exercise?

friendlyfun

shakeitoff wrote: »

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

Because not everyone wants play proletarian sports with their bellies hanging out

P_1

friendlyfun wrote: »

Because not everyone wants play proletarian sports with their bellies hanging out

And some do. Not everyone wants to play bourgeois sports with their monocle falling out

dense

Internet Friend wrote: »

Cycling 2 abreast is safer (legal and recommended) and faster to overtake safely

Is it? I'm a motorist and cylist.
I cycle with a partner and try to go single file because you feel like you're antagonising motorists by staying 2 abreast.

As a motorist I can't say I've ever considered it safer to pass 2 cyclists abreast than in single file either.

Who recommends it? It's not terribly well publicised. I've never seen an RSA ad telling motorists and cyclists this. And no I'm not talking about something obscure on YouTube as passing for an ad. I mean on TV.

If people knew it it might solve some of the rows.

mloc123

dense wrote: »

Is it? I'm a motorist and cylist.
I cycle with a partner and try to go single file because you feel like you're antagonising motorists by staying 2 abreast.

As a motorist I can't say I've ever considered it safer to pass 2 cyclists abreast than in single file either.

Who recommends it? It's not terribly well publicised. I've never seen an RSA ad telling motorists and cyclists this. And no I'm not talking about something obscure on YouTube as passing for an ad. I mean on TV.

If people knew it it might solve some of the rows.

RSA ran an ad campaign last year about this... it was on TV quite a bit

07Lapierre

mloc123 wrote: »

RSA ran an ad campaign last year about this... it was on TV quite a bit

yep... this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swnGEbKp7QY

topper75

dense wrote: »

Is it? I'm a motorist and cylist.
I cycle with a partner and try to go single file because you feel like you're antagonising motorists by staying 2 abreast.

As a motorist I can't say I've ever considered it safer to pass 2 cyclists abreast than in single file either.

Who recommends it? It's not terribly well publicised. I've never seen an RSA ad telling motorists and cyclists this. And no I'm not talking about something obscure on YouTube as passing for an ad. I mean on TV.

If people knew it it might solve some of the rows.

I think it is more appropriate to group cycles, rather than the pair scenario with your wife and yourself. It shortens the length of the group and makes passing easier. When I cycle in a pair I don't do it. Unless the road is straight clear and empty when I chat to the other cyclist. On Sunday group rides we ALWAYS double up.

The rules of the road explicitly permits cycling two abreast. Worryingly you are not the first motorist whose knowledge of same is sketchy. Even worse a high ranking garda (in Galway I think) betrayed his ignorance of same there last year. It is mandatory as a road user to know those rules. Get a copy and reread.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/top-garda-not-abreast-of-cycling-rules-xf0nwppmp

PlaneSpeeking

07Lapierre wrote: »

yep... this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swnGEbKp7QY

Quick query - are there RSA videos or similar giving cyclists advice on how they should behave on roads ?

mloc123

dense wrote: »

As a motorist I can't say I've ever considered it safer to pass 2 cyclists abreast than in single file either.

So I assume when passing singe file you squeeze by without overtaking properly using the second lane? If you do not have room to overtake 2 cyclist abreast, you do not have enough room to overtake a single line either.

Chips Lovell

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NGdQDEkWCE

PlaneSpeeking

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NGdQDEkWCE

So, to allow the small but existing minority of groups who hold up road users - it's worth saving 6 measly seconds ????