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

whisky_galore

07Lapierre wrote: »

Ok then ban cars from the tunnel! Plenty of room for bikes then! :P

(There are other ways of modifying tunnels that doesn't involve major engineering works. Simply banning cyclists is the easy/lazy option)

The tunnel was built well before the recent cycling fetish. Even if you were allowed cycle through it, negotiating the roundabouts etc would be well dicey.

The Kop

gctest50 wrote: »

this sorta thing :

You see this is what bugs me. If the car hits that cyclist and kills him, places like the Journal will report that as A cyclist has died after being hit by a car. You would then have tools like AngryJRenko posting comments about how bad all motorists are etc etc. It's clearly obvious in the above video that if the cyclist was hit it would have been completely his own fault.
It's also telling for a man who does so many multiple quote posts AngryJRenko never comments on videos like above...

magicbastarder

The Kop wrote: »

You see this is what bugs me. If the car hits that cyclist and kills him, places like the Journal will report that as A cyclist has died after being hit by a car.

generally, most media outlets will report along the lines of 'involved in a collision with a car'. some who don't pay for proper journalists may vary from that.

The Kop

magicbastarder wrote: »

generally, most media outlets will report along the lines of 'involved in a collision with a car'. some who don't pay for proper journalists may vary from that.

Whatever. That's not the point anyway. It's more a point against the it's always the motorists fault if a cyclist is killed theory that some believe.

John_Rambo

The Kop wrote: »

Whatever. That's not the point anyway. It's more a point against the it's always the motorists fault if a cyclist is killed theory that some believe.

Statistically, this is the case.

Fighting Tao

The Kop wrote: »

You see this is what bugs me. If the car hits that cyclist and kills him, places like the Journal will report that as A cyclist has died after being hit by a car. You would then have tools like AngryJRenko posting comments about how bad all motorists are etc etc. It's clearly obvious in the above video that if the cyclist was hit it would have been completely his own fault.
It's also telling for a man who does so many multiple quote posts AngryJRenko never comments on videos like above...

You are wrong. Look up any article published after a collision in Ireland. You will see that the emphasis is always put on the bike hitting the car. Completely biased against the cyclist.

Here’s two recent ones as examples. They state that the bikes collided with the vehicle. Blame is immediately allocate to the cyclist regardless of the truth.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/cyclist-16-killed-after-collision-with-car-in-co-kildare-is-named-1.3557921?mode=amp

http://www.thejournal.ie/cyclist-serious-injuries-dublin-n11-3965285-Apr2018/

seamus

The Kop wrote: »

Whatever. That's not the point anyway. It's more a point against the it's always the motorists fault if a cyclist is killed theory that some believe.

And some believe that it's always the cyclists fault.

What's your point?

PlaneSpeeking

seamus wrote: »

And some believe that it's always the cyclists fault.

What's your point?

In that case it is.

In many cases it is - in many cases cyclists have ridden off and caused a crash.

The point is that there are cycling advocates on here who never believe anything bad about cyclists and automatically blame others, laugh at injuries caused by law breaking cyclists or just purely disbelieve.

Nothing will improve until there is a conversation held in the middle ground.

Fighting Tao

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

In that case it is.

In many cases it is - in many cases cyclists have ridden off and caused a crash.

The point is that there are cycling advocates on here who never believe anything bad about cyclists and automatically blame others, laugh at injuries caused by law breaking cyclists or just purely disbelieve.

Nothing will improve until there is a conversation held in the middle ground.

Ah go on. You made. A crazy claim so provide evidence of that been rampant or even one tenth as common as motorists leaving the scene of an accident.

PlaneSpeeking

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Ah go on. You made. A crazy claim so provide evidence of that been rampant or even one tenth as common as motorists leaving the scene of an accident.

And there it is.

I never said it was widespread, or everywhere - and the "but motorists are worse" comes out.

John_Rambo

Just for a bit of perspective.

From a study carried out in the UK where drivers tend to be better than Irish drivers.

"With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time"

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study

Steve F

The Kop wrote: »

You see this is what bugs me. If the car hits that cyclist and kills him, places like the Journal will report that as A cyclist has died after being hit by a car. You would then have tools like AngryJRenko posting comments about how bad all motorists are etc etc. It's clearly obvious in the above video that if the cyclist was hit it would have been completely his own fault.
It's also telling for a man who does so many multiple quote posts AngryJRenko never comments on videos like above...

...and this is why dash cams should come fitted into all cars as standard.
Cars come with plenty of gadgets and Gizmos these days to temp us to buy new but do they fit something as handy as a Cam? Nope!!

Fighting Tao

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And there it is.

I never said it was widespread, or everywhere - and the "but motorists are worse" comes out.

You said many cases and so back up your claim with evidence. It’s quite simple. Otherwise it will be rightly assumed that you are talking crap.

You o on about having a conversation in the middle ground but you are unable to due to your personal bias.

I’m guessing that you also made assumptions of my usual mode of transport.

seamus

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

In many cases it is - in many cases cyclists have ridden off and caused a crash.

[Citation Needed]

greenspurs

WOW>..

Never saw this thread turning this way ......... *Yawn.

07Lapierre

whisky_galore wrote: »

The tunnel was built well before the recent cycling fetish. Even if you were allowed cycle through it, negotiating the roundabouts etc would be well dicey.

Roudabouts are easy to negotiate on a bike. What makes them difficult is impatient motorists not using roundabouts correctly and not slowing down to allow cyclists time to negotiate the roundabout.

Fighting Tao

seamus wrote: »

[Citation Needed]

Ah seamus, don’t go there because anyone who dares cycle isn’t allowed to ask for any sort of evidence for his/her ostentatious claims.

PlaneSpeeking

Steve F wrote: »

...and this is why dash cams should come fitted into all cars as standard.
Cars come with plenty of gadgets and Gizmos these days to temp us to buy new but do they fit something as handy as a Cam? Nope!!

A dashcam saved a mate of mine's hide not long back. Pedestrian tried to say he ran a red and had a near miss - there was a cyclist there with a GoPro who said he'd check his footage "but I'll back you up".

Mate says "no need - got a dashcam here". Pedestrian and cyclist move off.

I don't drive but I'd say they should be mandatory.

ewc78

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

In that case it is.

In many cases it is - in many cases cyclists have ridden off and caused a crash.

The point is that there are cycling advocates on here who never believe anything bad about cyclists and automatically blame others, laugh at injuries caused by law breaking cyclists or just purely disbelieve.

Nothing will improve until there is a conversation held in the middle ground.

Nail firmly on the head my good man.

magicbastarder

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Here’s two recent ones as examples. They state that the bikes collided with the vehicle. Blame is immediately allocate to the cyclist regardless of the truth.

'in collision with' does not imply blame though. 'crashed into' would, but 'in collision with' is neutral.

PlaneSpeeking

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Ah seamus, don’t go there because anyone who dares question cyclists cycle isn’t allowed to criticise ever, lest the sarcasm is released ask for any sort of evidence for his/her ostentatious claims.

Fixed that for you there.

d'Oracle

John_Rambo wrote: »

From a study carried out in the UK where drivers tend to be better than Irish drivers.

Really?

Fighting Tao

magicbastarder wrote: »

'in collision with' does not imply blame though. 'crashed into' would, but 'in collision with' is neutral.

It is an attempt at neutral language but it is not neutral. Whichever is mentioned in the former is apportioned blame.

“Car collided with truck” implies that the car hit the truck.

Neutral language would say “car and truck involved in a collision” or “car and truck collided”.

Fighting Tao

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Fixed that for you there.

Just as I thought. You can’t back up what you say.

P_1

Lads a conversation in the middle ground does have to happen here. Otherwise were just going to have the same circle of boloxology and more people are going to be needlessly killed and injured.

Put the pitchforks down. We all want the same bloody thing.

[Deleted User]

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

The point is that there are cycling advocates on here who never believe anything bad about cyclists and automatically blame others, laugh at injuries caused by law breaking cyclists or

[Citation needed]

Cabaal

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't mind lycra, I think it's functional and cycling is good fun. Especially in hot weather it's a lot cooler than other forms of exercise. But I do wonder is it a man thing that they first spend couple of grand on a bike when something between 500 to 1000 would be perfect for the amount of cycling they actually do.

Its their money so why does it bother you?

I'm in the process of spending 900e on a Dutch designed bike, one could argue I could go to halfords and buy one for 200e that could do the same job

After all, it would have wheels, brakes etc too!

magicbastarder

P_1 wrote: »

We all want the same bloody thing.

(citation required)

(sorry, couldn't help it)

PlaneSpeeking

magicbastarder wrote: »

(citation required)

(sorry, couldn't help it)

Least yours was funny!!!!!

[Deleted User]

The Kop wrote: »

You see this is what bugs me. If the car hits that cyclist and kills him, places like the Journal will report that as A cyclist has died after being hit by a car. You would then have tools like AngryJRenko posting comments about how bad all motorists are etc etc. It's clearly obvious in the above video that if the cyclist was hit it would have been completely his own fault.
It's also telling for a man who does so many multiple quote posts AngryJRenko never comments on videos like above...

Are you aware of any examples over the past five years or so where a driver has killed a cyclist in circumstances like this?