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

26-07-2018 10:04AM

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.

Did anyone actually say "it's always the motorists fault" here?

07Lapierre · 26-07-2018 10:07AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

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

Nothing will improve until we have greater ENFORCEMENT of all rules of the road for ALL road users.

Boom_Bap · 26-07-2018 10:08AM

Cabaal wrote: »

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!

I've been riding a bike that cost somewhere between 300 to 400, because I'm using it so much, and know what I don't like about it, I'm looking at bikes that cost between 900 - 1000 to meet what I want.
And I've no problem spending that because I'll effectively be using it more often and doing different types of cycling that I'm somewhat restricted from on my current bike.

26-07-2018 10:09AM

Bowlardo wrote: »

You know when cyclist are 2/3/4 a breast on a country road what is their defined etiquette to them going single file and letting me pass?
Maybe if everyone knew it would be grand.... like it shouldn’t take more than 20 seconds to go single file????

Dunno - but I l'll ask the question at next weekend's meeting of all the cyclists and get back to you - is that OK?

But I'm curious as to why you think your journey is more important than anyone else's? Do you pull over in heavy urban traffic to let faster cyclists pass? It shouldn't take you more than 20 seconds to pull over.

PlaneSpeeking · 26-07-2018 10:10AM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Nothing will improve until we have greater ENFORCEMENT of all rules of the road for ALL road users.

I would definitely agree there.

07Lapierre · 26-07-2018 10:12AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I would definitely agree there.

Great...now, can we get back on topic? if everyone obeyed the ROTR, we'd all be happy and since there are no laws regarding Lycra, we can all wear what we like right?

26-07-2018 10:13AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

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

Where exactly is the 'middle ground' between "kills more than 4,000 people over the last 15 years" and "kills zero people over the same period"?

dense · 26-07-2018 10:22AM

gmacww wrote: »

For riding 2 abreast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swnGEbKp7QY

Now it's not RSA (wexford council) but for a video explaining the safety of 2 abreast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NGdQDEkWCE

The first we've already seen, it doesn't say it's safer to cycle two abreast.

The second one is just stupid, its so unscientific.

What speed was the car travelling at in the first overtake and what speed at the second overtake?

The same? Prove it.

Looks like it was deliberatley travelling at a slower speed passing out the single file scenario.

Or maybe it was a car that was faulty and just couldn't accelerate when overtaking? Farcical stuff.

Where can I read about the controls that were in place to ensure both manoeuvres were executed at the same speeds?

What distances were travelled and who independently verified the claims being made?

This is just stuff being made up by cycling activists as far as I can see and getting a video made that doesn't verify it doesn't help.

Nowhere has the RSA said it's safer to cycle two abreast.

Nor has it been proven to be so by that video.

PlaneSpeeking · 26-07-2018 10:22AM

07Lapierre wrote: »

Great...now, can we get back on topic? if everyone obeyed the ROTR, we'd all be happy and since there are no laws regarding Lycra, we can all wear what we like right?

Hey if you're a fit bloke, wear Lycra all the live long day!!!!

:D:D

Seriously, what does the uniform matter ? People get so hung up on that for some reason ?

P_1 · 26-07-2018 10:23AM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where exactly is the 'middle ground' between "kills more than 4,000 people over the last 15 years" and "kills zero people over the same period"?

What causes the deaths? Is it driver error, drunk drivers, drivers on the phone, bad road conditions, cyclists putting themselves in bad places, sheer bad luck?

Rather than beating the drum about killing thousands let's focus on what causes these deaths and try to eliminate the causes one cause at a time.

magicbastarder · 26-07-2018 10:26AM

dense wrote: »

Nowhere has the RSA said it's safer to cycle two abreast.

of course they won't. they'll instead focus on marginal issues like hi-vis which has shag all benefit but allows them to pretend they're doing something.

PlaneSpeeking · 26-07-2018 10:28AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

of course they won't. they'll instead focus on marginal issues like hi-vis which has shag all benefit but allows them to pretend they're doing something.

I'm going to ask a dumb but genuine question here.

What good is a high vis jacket in the daylight ? At night yeah I get it but surely WHAT you driving/walking/cycling conduct is matters more ???

Am I missing some hi-vis importance ???

PlaneSpeeking · 26-07-2018 10:29AM

P_1 wrote: »

What causes the deaths? Is it driver error, drunk drivers, drivers on the phone, bad road conditions, cyclists putting themselves in bad places, sheer bad luck?

Rather than beating the drum about killing thousands let's focus on what causes these deaths and try to eliminate the causes one cause at a time.

Sadly caught AJR's post in your reply there.

So, NO cyclist has caused any deaths in 15 years ? Can I clarify that was the statement ?

26-07-2018 10:33AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Hey if you're a fit bloke, wear Lycra all

And if you're not a fit bloke? Seriously, if you're a heavy, bulging bloke or a heavy gal, is OK to wear lycra then - do we need some kind of group permission to wear practical clothing designed for a particular activity?

P_1 wrote: »

What causes the deaths? Is it driver error, drunk drivers, drivers on the phone, bad road conditions, cyclists putting themselves in bad places, sheer bad luck?

Rather than beating the drum about killing thousands let's focus on what causes these deaths and try to eliminate the causes one cause at a time.

Recognising the relative numbers involved is an important part of the prioritisation of activity and resources - but in general, you're on the right track. Check out the RSA analysis of road deaths - the big issues are the usual suspects - speeding, drink/driving, tiredness, bad equipment.

I'm not sure if phone use has come up as a cause of deaths on Irish roads, but it has certainly come up in the UK. I suspect the Gardai aren't really doing proper due diligence on this particular issue.

I can't recall any deaths about 'cyclists putting themselves in bad places' but possibly there have been. Sometimes, that's used as a mask for driving dangerous equipment with known blind spots on a shared public road, so there can be bigger issues at play.

But yes, if you want to reduce road deaths, get drivers to slow down, put the phones down, put the pints down.

magicbastarder · 26-07-2018 10:33AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm going to ask a dumb but genuine question here.

What good is a high vis jacket in the daylight ? At night yeah I get it but surely WHAT you driving/walking/cycling conduct is matters more ???

Am I missing some hi-vis importance ???

they seem to be touted as some sort of panacea for cycling safety; though the vast majority of cyclists deaths happen in daylight.
cyclists are (justifiably, in my eyes) often annoyed that they focus on hi-vis jackets far more than much more sensible options such as good lights.

selwyn froggitt · 26-07-2018 10:33AM

d'Oracle wrote: »

Really?

It's hard to say really whether Irish Drivers are worse than British drivers,but what I do know is that if you habitually speed,red light jump,undertake,use your mobile whilst driving,tailgate etc etc then you will be nicked by the British Police.

Not so here in Ireland,there is very little law enforcement or downright apathy regarding law enforcement.If you get in your car and know the chances of you getting done is virtually zilch then it becomes a free for all (for some).

granturismo · 26-07-2018 10:34AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm going to ask a dumb but genuine question here.

What good is a high vis jacket in the daylight ? At night yeah I get it but surely WHAT you driving/walking/cycling conduct is matters more ???

Am I missing some hi-vis importance ???

hivis jackets are almost useless in the dark. They have stripes which reflect light which can be effective when there is little to no ambient light. They are more useful in daylight as a visible highlighter.

Some idiot runs around the back roads in Maynooth during winter evenings with a yellow sports bib - they dont have reflective strips.

magicbastarder · 26-07-2018 10:35AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

So, NO cyclist has caused any deaths in 15 years ? Can I clarify that was the statement ?

probably a reference to the last known case of an irish cyclist causing the death of another road user, which was in 2002 or 2003. cycle courier going the wrong way up a one way street, pedestrian fatality.

26-07-2018 10:35AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm going to ask a dumb but genuine question here.

What good is a high vis jacket in the daylight ? At night yeah I get it but surely WHAT you driving/walking/cycling conduct is matters more ???

Am I missing some hi-vis importance ???

It's an excellent question. You might want to ask the RSA why they focus a huge amount of their cash, people and PR resources on their objective of wrapping every person in the country in hi-vis everytime they walk out of their front door (except of course, if you're a motorist or passenger, or you're driving a black or dark car - hi-vis doesn't matter for those people, just for poor people who walk or cycle).

timbel · 26-07-2018 10:36AM

dense wrote: »

The first we've already seen, it doesn't say it's safer to cycle two abreast.

The second one is just stupid, its so unscientific.

What speed was the car travelling at in the first overtake and what speed at the second overtake?

The same? Prove it.

Looks like it was deliberatley travelling at a slower speed passing out the single file scenario.

Or maybe it was a car that was faulty and just couldn't accelerate when overtaking? Farcical stuff.

Where can I read about the controls that were in place to ensure both manoeuvres were executed at the same speeds?

What distances were travelled and who independently verified the claims being made?

This is just stuff being made up by cycling activists as far as I can see and getting a video made that doesn't verify it doesn't help.

Nowhere has the RSA said it's safer to cycle two abreast.

Nor has it been proven to be so by that video.

I have to laugh at this post.
Its maths.

Would you agree that distance from first rider to last rider is greater when they are in single file rather than 2 abreast?

If so, it doesnt matter what speeds were shown in the video - it will take the car longer to travel a greater distance.

On the last point, cycling 2 a breast discourages drivers from trying to squeeze past cyclists even when there is oncoming traffic.
This is particularly important on winding sections of road to discourage drivers passing on blind corners.
In this case if a car comes in the opposite direction on a corner, the natural reaction of the driver will be to avoid it, and the cyclist gets hit.

26-07-2018 10:39AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

So, NO cyclist has caused any deaths in 15 years ? Can I clarify that was the statement ?

The statement was that no cyclist has killed another road user in Ireland in the last 15 years. There have been a handful of cases where cyclists have caused their own deaths over that time, but no cyclist has killed another road user in Ireland for the last 15 years. Meanwhile, motorists kill 3 or 4 people each week on Irish roads.

That might help you to understand why I'm struggling to find this 'middle ground'. What did you actually have in mind here - maybe something like 'if cyclists promise to stop breaking red lights, then motorists will promise to stop killing cyclists'?

07Lapierre · 26-07-2018 10:39AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Hey if you're a fit bloke, wear Lycra all the live long day!!!! :D:D

Seriously, what does the uniform matter ? People get so hung up on that for some reason ?

The "Uniform" is important..only yesterday i saw a guy cycling up Howth wearing a Polka Dot Jersey! .... Brave man!

PlaneSpeeking · 26-07-2018 10:40AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

probably a reference to the last known case of an irish cyclist causing the death of another road user, which was in 2002 or 2003. cycle courier going the wrong way up a one way street, pedestrian fatality.

I'd say there have been a fair few near misses in that time - I was one. I've seen two more.

I'd also wager not all of the alleged 4,000 deaths involving a car were the drivers fault but that is the default.

Like I and a few others have said, extreme views on either side and a refusal to accept ANY blame or consequences of behaviour will not improve anything for all.

Agreed on lights though - why are they not automatically installed on all bikes ??

Edit - thank God for ignore. Mindless zealotry gives me hives.

Cabaal · 26-07-2018 10:40AM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I've been riding a bike that cost somewhere between 300 to 400, because I'm using it so much, and know what I don't like about it, I'm looking at bikes that cost between 900 - 1000 to meet what I want.
And I've no problem spending that because I'll effectively be using it more often and doing different types of cycling that I'm somewhat restricted from on my current bike.

Which makes perfect sense,
But if somebody wants to go out and blow 5k on a bike I wouldn't begrudge them, its their money after all.

cfuserkildare · 26-07-2018 10:41AM

" Recognising the relative numbers involved is an important part of the prioritisation of activity and resources - but in general, you're on the right track. Check out the RSA analysis of road deaths - the big issues are the usual suspects - speeding, drink/driving, tiredness, bad equipment."

Again, This analysis Only concentrates on deaths caused by Car Drivers,
What about the Cyclists that assume they are entitled to head through minute gaps between cars that have not quite stopped yet? Is the car driver at fault there?
Is the car driver at fault when a Drunk falls in front of the car when there is not enough distance to brake/react?

Again that is a Biased piece of information.

PlaneSpeeking · 26-07-2018 10:42AM

Cabaal wrote: »

Which makes perfect sense,
But if somebody wants to go out and blow 5k on a bike I wouldn't begrudge them, its their money after all.

I work with someone who got one from the Bike to Work scheme - couple of grand with the kit added on.

Lovely machine. His money, why not ?

07Lapierre · 26-07-2018 10:42AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Agreed on lights though - why are they not automatically installed on all bikes ??

Because the RSA have a shed load of Hi-viz vests they need to shift!

d'Oracle · 26-07-2018 10:42AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I would definitely agree there.

I don't.
I don't think enforcement is the issue.
I think education and cultural change will fix it.

I mean look at this thread, a guy asks why Cycling is the chosen sport of reasonably wealthy middle aged men, and its suddenly a fight about cyclists vs drivers.
That combative mentality is everywhere and its flippin nuts, it informs peoples driving more than the rules of the road.

If we are bad drivers its because we are surrounded by this childish impatient combative mentality.
Same with cyclists.
More enforcement will only reinforce that.
Also the rules of the road are kind of hard to enforce.

PlaneSpeeking · 26-07-2018 10:44AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Hey if you're a fit bloke, wear Lycra all the live long day!!!! :D:D

Seriously, what does the uniform matter ? People get so hung up on that for some reason ?

I REALLY didn't think this needed an explanation but clearly along with the mindless zealotry is a sense of humour failure. And clearly a failure to read Line 2 which shows it's no concern of anyone's what someone chooses to wear.

The line in bold was a bawdy JOKE. Remember those ???

26-07-2018 10:45AM

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'd say there have been a fair few near misses in that time - I was one. I've seen two more.

I'd also wager not all of the alleged 4,000 deaths involving a car were the drivers fault but that is the default.

Like I and a few others have said, extreme views on either side and a refusal to accept ANY blame or consequences of behaviour will not improve anything for all.

Agreed on lights though - why are they not automatically installed on all bikes ??

Yes, there certainly have been plenty of near misses over that time - near misses caused by motorists, by cyclists and by pedestrians. It's not unreasonable to assume that the near-misses occur somewhere in proportion to the death rate, so the number of near misses by motorists are very likely to be vast in numbers compared to the near misses by cyclists.

As for the 4,000 deaths involving motorists, what kind of circumstances would cause these not to be the responsibility of the motorist, at least partially. We have a legal obligation for motorists to be able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear, so even where a pedestrian or cyclist suddenly moves out into the path of the motorist, the motorist should be able to stop.

Just for the record, the vast majority of road deaths have no cyclist involvement. About 75% of road deaths are motorists killing other motorists or passengers. A further 20% are motorists killing pedestrians. The remaining 5% are motorists killing cyclists. About 99% of road deaths involve motorists, vs about 5% involving cyclists. It's not hard to see the common denominator here.

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

Comments