joey100 wrote: » And they are given priority, by having thousands of km of motorways built for them.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So why do the motorists overtake the cyclists in the first place, knowing that they're not going to be staying ahead of them?
cfuserkildare wrote: » Which motorists have to Pay for!!!
Balanadan wrote: » Are cyclists behind the lack of infrastructure development in Ireland? All those objections to building new motorways which are so badly needed in the country?
Baron de Charlus wrote: » What are you on about? Are you seriously suggesting a motorist shouldn't overtake a slower moving cyclist on the off chance that they'll squeeze by them at the next set of lights rather than joining the queue?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » It's your suggestion. You proposed that you should only overtake " if it's likely you're going to be staying ahead of the vehicle you're overtaking" - so why would you overtake a cyclist knowing that they're going to filter past you at the next lights?
Baron de Charlus wrote: » Honest to god. You must be a delight to share the road with.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » What's the problem, really? Your proposal was "if it's likely you're going to be staying ahead of the vehicle you're overtaking" so I'm just following your proposal to the letter.
magicbastarder wrote: » the great thing about a bike being able to use the roads is that this is a list of things you *aren't* legally required to have to cycle: a licence third party insurance valid NCT paid up motor tax to have passed your 16th birthday etc. the thing is, cyclists have a default right/entitlement/whatever you want to call it, to use the roads. motorists do not.
Internet Friend wrote: » Maybe we should start prioritising road use based on energy efficiency, the most efficient getting top priority...
Rennaws wrote: » who pay the most for use of the the roads..
Rennaws wrote: » How about we come back to reality and give priority to those methods that are most practical and who pay the most for use of the the roads..
Podge_irl wrote: » So what you thinking? Colour coded stickers depending on salary? Or maybe just SUVs being able to run minis off the road?
Duckjob wrote: » It costs the state far, far, far, far, far, more for you to enjoy the privelege of of you driving your car than you will ever pay in motor tax.
Weepsie wrote: » Burning money by paying 1.50 a litre for petrol is entirely impractical if you ask me.
Rennaws wrote: » Yes but it’s a push bike.. Some of us grew up riding push bikes just who couldn’t wait for the day we could progress to a motor. I was on the road on my 17th bithday and I know my daughter will be the same. She cycles no but out of necessity. .
Rennaws wrote: » If walking or cycling is a valid alternative I would agree
Rennaws wrote: » Yes but it’s a push bike..Some of us grew up riding push bikes just who couldn’t wait for the day we could progress to a motor. I was on the road on my 17th bithday and I know my daughter will be the same. She cycles no but out of necessity. How about we come back to reality and give priority to those methods that are most practical and who pay the most for use of the the roads..
shakeitoff wrote: » TBF it's not a bad thing, but a lot of them have the most smug annoying faces. The whole get up is quite cringeworthy it must be said, zero chance of them doing it in football shorts and a t-shirt, has to be the most expensive equipment, reminds me of every middle aged tennis club player ever, shows up in all white with the best equipment and loses in straight sets to the guy with the 20 year old racket.
Deleted User wrote: » you mean get to see a bit of the countryside while causing 5km tailbacks :rolleyes:!!
topper75 wrote: » 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
Iwouldinmesack wrote: » Or WIL, W@nkers in Lycra
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Building new roads to solve our traffic problems is like buying bigger trousers to solve our obesity problem. More motorways means more traffic, which means more demands for even more motorways.
Rennaws wrote: » No idea but if we’re going virtue signal about efficiency then surely the amount people pay has to be taken into consideration somehow.
