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

whisky_galore · 26-07-2018 08:29AM

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 · 26-07-2018 08:52AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:00AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:06AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:11AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:13AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:16AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:22AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:24AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:25AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:27AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:28AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:28AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:30AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

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

[Citation Needed]

greenspurs · 26-07-2018 09:31AM

WOW>..

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

07Lapierre · 26-07-2018 09:31AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:32AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:37AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:37AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:38AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:39AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:41AM

John_Rambo wrote: »

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

Really?

Fighting Tao · 26-07-2018 09:42AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:43AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Fixed that for you there.

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

P_1 · 26-07-2018 09:51AM

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.

26-07-2018 09:58AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:59AM

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 · 26-07-2018 09:59AM

P_1 wrote: »

We all want the same bloody thing.

(citation required)

(sorry, couldn't help it)

PlaneSpeeking · 26-07-2018 10:01AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

(citation required)

(sorry, couldn't help it)

Least yours was funny!!!!!

26-07-2018 10:01AM

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?

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

Comments