Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…2324262829…38

Comments

  • #752
    Balanadan
    Site Banned Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Balanadan


    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?


  • #753
    cfuserkildare
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,626 ✭✭✭cfuserkildare


    joey100 wrote: »
    And they are given priority, by having thousands of km of motorways built for them.


    Which motorists have to Pay for!!!


  • #754
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    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?

    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?


  • #755
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 56,333 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    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.


  • #756
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 56,333 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    cfuserkildare wrote: »
    Which motorists have to Pay for!!!
    i think you'll find non-motorists pay income tax too.


  • Advertisement
  • #757
    joey100
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,477 ✭✭✭joey100


    @cfuserkildare, not just motorists, if you think your 'road' tax pays for all the motorways in the country your miles off. Yep motorists pay tolls on them roads but not for the building of the roads.


  • #758
    Internet Friend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 885 ✭✭✭Internet Friend


    Maybe we should start prioritising road use based on energy efficiency, the most efficient getting top priority...


  • #759
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 33,400 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?

    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.

    We need to start doing what smarter countries have been doing for decades - invest in proper public transport and proper cycling infrastructure.
    cfuserkildare wrote: »
    Which motorists have to Pay for!!!
    Is there any chance that motorists will start paying for the actual costs of the damage that they do to society?
    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cars-air-pollution-cost-nhs-vans-vehicles-health-bills-lung-disease-a8384806.html
    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?

    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?

    In other news today, it seems that it's not just cyclists that are causing lycra problems now;

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057895066


  • #760
    The Kop
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 85 ✭✭The Kop


    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?

    That's the thing. He hasnt a clue what he's on about. The guy is a ****ing space cadet.


  • #761
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    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?

    Honest to god. You must be a delight to share the road with.


  • Advertisement
  • #762
    The Kop
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 85 ✭✭The Kop


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    Honest to god. You must be a delight to share the road with.

    Never mind sharing the road with him,could you imagine having to live with him....


  • #763
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 33,400 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    Honest to god. You must be a delight to share the road with.

    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.


  • #764
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    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.

    Do you not see that you're keeping the traffic flow moving more freely if you only overtake when you need to, but you're slowly it down if you overtake unnecessarily?


  • #765
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    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.

    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.
    Internet Friend wrote: »
    Maybe we should start prioritising road use based on energy efficiency, the most efficient getting top priority...

    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..


  • #766
    Internet Friend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 885 ✭✭✭Internet Friend


    Rennaws wrote: »
    who pay the most for use of the the roads..

    Who exactly is that now?


  • #767
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 34,009 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    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..

    So what you thinking? Colour coded stickers depending on salary? Or maybe just SUVs being able to run minis off the road?


  • #768
    Internet Friend
    Closed Accounts Posts: 885 ✭✭✭Internet Friend


    Also, practicality is a very subjective thing to be basing priority of road use. For me, cycling in to work is most practical. 26km and I can get to work in less than an hour, more practical than the bus, car or train. For someone else it might not be so practical for health reasons, work reasons, etc.


  • #769
    Duckjob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Duckjob


    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..


    Another misconception.

    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.


  • #770
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    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?

    No idea but if we’re going virtue signal about efficiency then surely the amount people pay has to be taken into consideration somehow.


  • #771
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    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.

    You’ll need to find someone who’s unfamiliar with that fact in order to wow them with it.

    You could be a while loooking..


  • Advertisement
  • #772
    The Bishop Basher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭The Bishop Basher


    Weepsie wrote: »
    Burning money by paying 1.50 a litre for petrol is entirely impractical if you ask me.

    If walking or cycling is a valid alternative I would agree


  • #773
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,726 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    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.
    .

    Thats an awful shame you had such a mindset,
    Thankfully loads of people don't have this mindset, Netherlands is a great example where everybody regardless of age/job etc cycle to get around.

    In city's and town's most commutes can be done via a bike, its low cost and safe. Why burden yourself and our environment unnecessarily with a car?
    I like driving, but I also like cycling. I cycled to work for over 10 years but for more then that I'm not driving.

    Still to do local journeys I'm now planning on picking up a bike next month because otherwise I'm just being a lazy bastard by driving everywhere.


  • #774
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,726 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Rennaws wrote: »
    If walking or cycling is a valid alternative I would agree

    At what distance do you consider cycling not viable as an alternative?
    1km
    5km
    10km
    20km
    30km

    ?


  • #775
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,535 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    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..

    Me too! I couldn't wait to get my Driving license!.. I love cars. I work in the Motor trade too, and I get a bit of stick from the lads here when they see me cycling into work!


  • #776
    mackeminexile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 345 ✭✭mackeminexile


    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.

    try cycling more than 10/15 kms on a road bike without the correct shorts and see how you feel the next day. Why would what 'they' wear annoy anyone, they're just clothes? As for the OP, its fast, fun, burns loads of calories, in the fresh air and not hurting anyone else.


  • #777
    mackeminexile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 345 ✭✭mackeminexile


    Deleted User wrote: »
    you mean get to see a bit of the countryside while causing 5km tailbacks :rolleyes:!!

    proof or gtfo:mad:


  • #778
    dense
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,175 ✭✭✭dense


    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




    I said I can't remember the RSA advising anyone to ride two abreast because it's safer. Nobody said they can't.



    Then I was offered a video where the RSA acknowledges that cyclists may cycle two abreast.



    Everyone knows they may, but nobody can show where the RSA recommends it or says its safer.


    So it just seems to be an idea that people have.


  • #779
    mackeminexile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 345 ✭✭mackeminexile


    Iwouldinmesack wrote: »
    Or WIL, W@nkers in Lycra

    how long did that take you? Wtf was the point in even taking the time to post it?


  • #780
    Balanadan
    Site Banned Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Balanadan


    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.


    So let's have major factories and industrial areas serviced by single carriageways and unmarked back roads, and stifle economic growth? Complete and utter nonsense.


  • Advertisement
  • #781
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 33,400 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

    How would that work? Live link to Revenue online to display the cumulative gross ytd on the back window? We'd all have to give way to higher earners.

    But that wouldn't cover VAT or CGT payments? Drat.

    Do you have any practical proposals to make it work? Would the same policy also apply to schools and hospitals, with higher earners pushing others aside?


Advertisement
Advertisement