AndrewJRenko wrote: » 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.
Ellie Hallowed Acorn wrote: » 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.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Oh so it's OK to insult an entire community in one go? The double standard is outstanding.
Balanadan wrote: » Do you want to build cycle lanes that won't "fill up as soon as they are built"? Surely that defeats the purpose, building infrastructure that nobody uses, a great white elephant.
magicbastarder wrote: » the number of cyclists cyling into the city has nearly trebled in the last 10 or 12 years. the number of motorists is falling.
Pinch Flat wrote: » I hear you. But surely any society would develop several strands of infrastructure? So decent roads, rail and cycling infrastructure. The main focus in Ireland has been to facilitate the private car as the primary means of personal transport at the detriment of other modes of travel.
Jennehy wrote: » All for cycling but cycling on ballincollig bypass and on through Jack Lunch tunnel should be banned.
07Lapierre wrote: » I assume you are concerned for the safety of the cyclists due to the fact that they are cycling through a tunnel designed for motorised traffic only? If that's the case why not demand that the authorities modify the tunnel to facilitate cyclists?
Jennehy wrote: » Modify the tunnel, simple engineering problem that.
Balanadan wrote: » Go to any well developed country, and you will find motorways and high quality A roads linking towns, cities, factories and other industry.
Balanadan wrote: » It's a pity that the chap who doesn't want roads to be upgraded is hiding behind thanking your posts.
Rennaws wrote: » Man what are you on ? If you mean fat people on bikes as a community then ok i'm guilty as charged. I still don't understand how their can be the lightest element of double standard when i've taken zero offence from any of it myself.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Go to any well developed country, and you will find dedicated cycle infrastructure and a good public transport network. Cycle infrastructure in particular produces very solid returns:https://road.cc/content/news/134759-benefit-building-space-cycling-far-outweighs-cost-says-dft Will more motorways beat those kinds of returns? The chap happened to be out for the evening, so read/thanked a few posts while on the Luas. If you like, I can post my schedule for each day in advance so they're no disappointment on your part if I don't respond within your anticipated period?
Balanadan wrote: » I've already stated that I'm happy when cycling infrastructure is used when developed. I don't understand why is there a problem with our road network being upgraded and that subsequently being used too? Do you want motorists to have to drive on inadequate roads with all the problems and risks that that brings? Do you want to stifle economic growth? We have single carriageway roads and crumbling country roads feeding our factories and industrial areas in this country. Large Irish and multinational employers are being constrained by our appalling infrastructure and NIMBYs try to drag this country backwards every step of the way. Go to any well developed country, and you will find motorways and high quality A roads linking towns, cities, factories and other industry.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Balanadan wrote: » I've already stated that I'm happy when cycling infrastructure is used when developed. I don't understand why is there a problem with our road network being upgraded and that subsequently being used too? Do you want motorists to have to drive on inadequate roads with all the problems and risks that that brings? Do you want to stifle economic growth? We have single carriageway roads and crumbling country roads feeding our factories and industrial areas in this country. Large Irish and multinational employers are being constrained by our appalling infrastructure and NIMBYs try to drag this country backwards every step of the way. Go to any well developed country, and you will find motorways and high quality A roads linking towns, cities, factories and other industry. What kind of ROI will your proposed investment in further upgrading the road network (on top of the considerable upgrading that has taken place in recent years).
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Riding a skateboard on a city centre street at his age makes him look even more of a berk! The mere riding of it would be bad enough.
ballyharpat wrote: » PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Riding a skateboard on a city centre street at his age makes him look even more of a berk! The mere riding of it would be bad enough. Ah yes, the guy is doing something out of the norm, as Irish people, we thrive on picking on those that are different-why can't he walk, or drive etc Have you ever traveled? I lived in America for a long time, men in suits on bicycles and scooters, granted none on skateboards.... but no one looks twice. In France last week, there were men and women, in their 30'3 40's on fold up bikes, electric scooters, skateboards, e bikes small wheeled motorcycles, they were just going about their business..... and so was everyone else. At one point I saw a guy, must have been in his late 50's, he pulled a wheelie on his bike going down the street. This did make me look, I thought "how refreshing' to see a guy with a smile on his face at that ge in his suit and tie, just enjoying his bike and life. You claim to have no problem with cyclists, but you seem to have an issue with every person that doesn't use motorised transport, maybe take a look at yourself and why you have an issue with these people.
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.
wexandproud wrote: » 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 .
AndrewJRenko wrote: » What kind of ROI will your proposed investment in further upgrading the road network (on top of the considerable upgrading that has taken place in recent years).
dense wrote: » How is it that cyclists are imagining RSA ads they haven't seen and are expecting me to have seen them?
Bowlardo wrote: » You know when cyclist are 2/3/4 a breast
dense wrote: » Some RSA ads say that? The RSA hasn't said it's safer for cyclists to travel two abreast and that its recommended, has it?
