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

Cabaal · 25-07-2018 04:08PM

Weepsie wrote: »

While this is grossly untrue. If there were 5 km of tailbacks, that should tell you that there are too many cars rather than cyclists being the problem.

5km tallback would be in excess of around 70 cars,
I think we can all agree this is unlikely and if it were to occur we'd be hearing about it on the news.

07Lapierre · 25-07-2018 04:11PM

Back on Topic... heavy traffic is another reason why a lot of people have taken up cycling. Thanks to the Bike to work Scheme, the government actually pays people to cycle.

25-07-2018 04:13PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats an awful shame you had such a mindset,

Even bigger shame that he managed to pass on his personal prejudices to the next generation.

Cabaal · 25-07-2018 04:14PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Back on Topic... heavy traffic is another reason why a lot of people have taken up cycling. Thanks to the Bike to work Scheme, the government actually pays people to cycle.

Used to live in Waterford and commuted 10miles a day on the bike, there was something fun about meeting the end of a extremely slow tailback full of cars and trucks at WIT on a Friday evening and cycling passed hundreds of cars all the way back into Waterford City.

PlaneSpeeking · 25-07-2018 04:14PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Even bigger shame that he managed to pass on his personal prejudices to the next generation.

Which no vehemently anti motorist cycling advocate would EVER do right ???

25-07-2018 04:19PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

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?

So what's the problem with staying behind the cyclist where there's a decent chance that he's going to filter past you at the next lights? That would avoid the unnecessary overtake that you mentioned.

25-07-2018 04:22PM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Which no vehemently anti motorist cycling advocate would EVER do right ???

Don't know about that, as I haven't seen any evidence either way. Have you?

Don't Chute! · 25-07-2018 04:22PM

Rennaws wrote: »

That's great. Now all we need is cyclists to actually cycle like that as opposed to the wobbling mass of fat taking up the entire lane that we have now and we'll be good..

Eh no..

I witnessed it as recently as this weekend. You calling it nonsense doesn't make it untrue. But sure have at it if it makes you feel better.

I really must invest in a dashcam. More to protect myself from bogus insurance claims but equally to be able to provide you with proof of what I witness every weekend but then even when it's blatantly the cyclist fault in the footage, cyclists will rush in to blame everyone and everything else but the cyclist. Actually I think i'll just avoid that stress all together.

I've mentioned Windgates because it's an obvious one with a slow climber and no room to get past. Every day I get held up here.. Sometimes in the morning you practically have to follow them all the way to the top. I even used to know who was quick and who wasn't back when I was doing that journey every day. But they were just loan cyclists trying to get to their own place of work and so I have no issue with them.

It's the large groups, particularly the amateurs that cause the vast majority of problems in my experience. . They seem to have zero sense or awareness and they're out on a jolly so they couldn't give a fluck about anyone else. I've witnessed them act in a manner so as to incite a reaction and then all in unison let out a roar while giving the finger to the young lady driving as she passed. More and more I see them act like dicks in a pack. You saying it doesn't happen doesn't make it not so.

It's getting increasingly worse as the numbers grow and something needs to be done about it as the roads have become a nightmare round here at weekends.

Again, if by "round here" you mean Greystones it's simply not true. You are making this up. I live there and it is nothing like that. Nothing. I think you need to just grow up and accept that cyclists are entitled to be on the road.

Chips Lovell · 25-07-2018 04:23PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So what's the problem with staying behind the cyclist where there's a decent chance that he's going to filter past you at the next lights?

It slows down the traffic flow. Cyclist is still moving at the same speed, but the cars he/she unnecessarily overtakes at the lights are slowed down. Why slow down other traffic when you have nothing to gain from doing so?

25-07-2018 04:24PM

Balanadan wrote: »

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.

Or maybe we could do some sustainable planning and locate major factories and industrial areas in areas with decent public transport?

You've noticed how well the 'build extra roads' thing has worked around the M50, right? With more and more people spending more and more time out of their day stuck in traffic, and the rush hour starting earlier and ending later.

The Bishop Basher · 25-07-2018 04:25PM

Cabaal wrote: »

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.

We spent time with friends there last year and loved cycling around because it felt so safe. As I said above, if walking or cycling is a valid alternative the. I’m all for t and would do it myself.

Which leads to your follow on question, which is a little subjective..

I’m a runner so I’m relatively fit and could cycle a reasonable distance without too much hassle but would I want to do it on a cold morning or even worse a wet morning ? The answer is an immediate no.

I’m a fairweather kind of person. I don’t go out in rain..

I’m certainly not going to cycle in it.

So when does it become a viable alternative ? That’s up to each and every individual to answer for themselves.

The Kop · 25-07-2018 04:28PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It slows down the traffic flow. Cyclist is still moving at the same speed, but the cars he/she unnecessarily overtakes at the lights are slowed down. Why slow down other traffic when you have nothing to gain from doing so?

Pretty straightforward argument. Not sure what AndrewJRenko is not understanding about it.
I think it's a self entitlement attitude from cyclists. I have every right to be here so I will hold everyone up.
It would be basic manners not to hold everyone up when you don't have to. It seems a lot of cyclists don't have basic manners.

The Bishop Basher · 25-07-2018 04:29PM

Don't Chute! wrote: »

Again, if by "round here" you mean Greystones it's simply not true. You are making this up. I live there and it is nothing like that. Nothing. I think you need to just grow up and accept that cyclists are entitled to be on the road.

I have a different view to you.

I accept yours even though it differs from mine.

Just because you disagree with me doesn’t give you the right to get personal and start telling me to grow up..

Duckjob · 25-07-2018 04:43PM

Rennaws wrote: »

Just because you disagree with me doesn’t give you the right to get personal and start telling me to grow up..

Rennaws wrote:

That's great. Now all we need is cyclists to actually cycle like that as opposed to the wobbling mass of fat taking up the entire lane that we have now and we'll be good

Bit rich talking about not getting personal when you're already posting this scutter

Cabaal · 25-07-2018 04:45PM

Rennaws wrote: »

I’m a runner so I’m relatively fit and could cycle a reasonable distance without too much hassle but would I want to do it on a cold morning or even worse a wet morning ? The answer is an immediate no..

I cycled to/from work for 10 years at 10 miles a day, the amount of times I had to wear my full rain gear was seriously tiny. sure it rained now and then but generally it was light and mainly the ground was wet so I'd wear a jacket cause the mudguards in my bike sucked.

Also, interesting fact for you. It rains on average more each year in Dublin then it does in Amsterdam. Yet here we are using rain as an excuse for not cycling :pac:
:rolleyes:

Funny how they manage in Amsterdam just fine, of course alot of that is down to a better choice of bike. They tend to pick bikes with mudguards that are suitable for comfortable/clean commutes but most people here pick bikes with no mudgards and opt for mountain bikes (some at least have sense to go with hybrid or road)

One thing I have noted in Dublin, there's certainly an increase in people using Dutch designed/made bikes because they are far more practical

I’m a fairweather kind of person. I don’t go out in rain..

I’m certainly not going to cycle in it.

Thats unfortunate, you are missing out on one of the joys of running too...running in the pouring rain

25-07-2018 04:46PM

The Kop wrote: »

Pretty straightforward argument. Not sure what AndrewJRenko is not understanding about it.
I think it's a self entitlement attitude from cyclists. I have every right to be here so I will hold everyone up.
It would be basic manners not to hold everyone up when you don't have to. It seems a lot of cyclists don't have basic manners.

07Lapierre · 25-07-2018 04:51PM

The Kop wrote: »

Pretty straightforward argument. Not sure what AndrewJRenko is not understanding about it.
I think it's a self entitlement attitude from cyclists. I have every right to be here so I will hold everyone up.
It would be basic manners not to hold everyone up when you don't have to. It seems a lot of cyclists don't have basic manners.

Lots of ignorant people out there. In particular I hate the morons who hog the outside lane of the M50!

Chips Lovell · 25-07-2018 04:54PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Lots of ignorant people out there. In particular I hate the morons who hog the outside lane of the M50!

Not to mention the middle lane

The Bishop Basher · 25-07-2018 05:09PM

Duckjob wrote: »

Bit rich talking about not getting personal when you're already posting this scutter

One is specifically directed at an individual (me)

The other wasn’t.

The difference should be clear.

wexandproud · 25-07-2018 05:13PM

dense wrote: »

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.

its a pity you didn't see some of the other adds where the rsa TRYS to explains to drivers that it is easier and takes less time to pass when they are two abrest . The only ones who make cycling two a breast dangerous are bad drivers

07Lapierre · 25-07-2018 05:13PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Not to mention the middle lane

Well, if there was a bike on the roof it was probably me!

Chips Lovell · 25-07-2018 05:14PM

In fairness Rennaws, what you said wasn't terribly nice and seemed to be intentionally provocative. It's a bit much to be then taking offence over something like that if that's the way you treat people.

Balanadan · 25-07-2018 05:19PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Or maybe we could do some sustainable planning and locate major factories and industrial areas in areas with decent public transport?

You've noticed how well the 'build extra roads' thing has worked around the M50, right? With more and more people spending more and more time out of their day stuck in traffic, and the rush hour starting earlier and ending later.

There's motorway volumes on traffic hammering down dodgy backroads every day of the week, and you don't think the infrastructure should be upgraded? Do you want people to die on these roads? Do you want to stifle economic growth?

The Bishop Basher · 25-07-2018 05:26PM

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

In fairness Rennaws, what you said wasn't terribly nice and seemed to be intentionally provocative. It's a bit much to be then taking offence over something like that if that's the way you treat people.

I haven’t taken the slightest bit of offence to anything.

What are you on about ?

25-07-2018 05:57PM

Rennaws wrote: »

One is specifically directed at an individual (me)

The other wasn’t.

The difference should be clear.

Oh so it's OK to insult an entire community in one go?

The double standard is outstanding.

The Kop · 25-07-2018 06:04PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Oh so it's OK to insult an entire community in one go?

The double standard is outstanding.

Aye because you don't do exactly the same thing. Lol

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 25-07-2018 06:12PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Oh so it's OK to insult an entire community in one go?

The double standard is outstanding.

You're some goalpost mover.

"You're also making personal remarks, that's a double standard"

"No I made general remarks, other people made personal remarks directly about me"

"You're making generalisations, that's a double standard!"

This whole thread is just people taking the time to reply to you and you changing the tack to something else, and responding to that instead.

You're like that channel four wan with Jordan Peterson.

25-07-2018 06:27PM

Balanadan wrote: »

There's motorway volumes on traffic hammering down dodgy backroads every day of the week, and you don't think the infrastructure should be upgraded? Do you want people to die on these roads? Do you want to stifle economic growth?

What's next - won't someone please think of the children?

Here's the first priority - the motorist community should get their fellow motorists to stop hammering around these roads. That's how people get killed - from dangerous driving, not dangerous roads.

Then we should look at where we get the best overall return for the limited resources available for investment. I suspect that's going to mean more public transport and more cycling facilities, not more roads that will fill up as soon as they are built.

25-07-2018 06:38PM

Some cyclists are dicks, some motorists are dicks, the difference is that it is very difficult for a cyclist to endanger the life of a motorist.

There is simply no justification for a driver to endanger the life of a cyclist with a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre even if it will save precious seconds. This applies even when it is suspected that the cyclist may have the audacity to break the lights.

Also, I can't fathom why cyclists wearing cycling clothing such as lycra shorts causes so much distress to some non-cyclists. How do these people cope if on a beach when they see body shapes that they don't approve of?

[/RANT]

partyguinness · 25-07-2018 06:47PM

2011 wrote: »

Some cyclists are dicks, some motorists are dicks, the difference is that it is very difficult for a cyclist to endanger the life of a motorist.

There is simply no justification for a driver to endanger the life of a cyclist with a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre even if it will save precious seconds. This applies even when it is suspected that the cyclist may have the audacity to break the lights.

Also, I can't fathom why cyclists wearing cycling clothing such as lycra shorts causes so much distress to some non-cyclists. How do these people cope if on a beach when they see body shapes that they don't approve of?

[/RANT]

When you driving around in 1 tonne of metal at speed there is a greater duty of care on the driver.

What some motorists don't seem to realise is that in a collision with a cyclist or a pedestrian no Court has ever found in favour of a motorist and you are going down.

You risk killing or causing life changing injuries to a fellow road user all because you had to slow down and added 10 seconds to your journey.

Yes plenty of cyclists act the maggot but to see some motorists ranting or complaining about stupid **** is losing all sense of perspective.

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

Comments