Spook_ie wrote: » Yes I know they both relate to the same accident, that's why the words "Fatal result of the above" are typed in between them, anyways perhaps you could contact the author of the article and ask if the pedestrian was on the shared cycle path or not, I see nothing in the article to indicate either way. In the context of the thread maybe the cyclist was stopped or the pedestrian was standing still?
Hurrache wrote: » Sorry, you're for real? You're saying kids out on bikes need to take responsibility for themselves when out on the roads, the adults in cars around them shouldn't be worrying or hindered by them? I think the line between who's the kids on the roads has just become somewhat blurred in your poor take of reality. Ah sure those ****ers in prams and buggies, who do those pricks think they are when they expect us to be aware of them when they're nearby.
ewc78 wrote: » Ah here you can't blame everything on motorists. Teenagers on bikes are a menace on the roads where I live, not everyone who drives are a car is out to get a cyclist. There is a group near me who are constantly flying up and down a busy road on bikes doing wheelies and ignoring any cars that are on the road, or cycling while looking at their phones, or cycling in large groups in the centre of the road.
ewc78 wrote: » Yes, I understand cyclists in general must feel unsafe on the roads as there are brutal drivers out there, but cyclists have to take responsibility for their own actions also, it can't always be the motorists fault.
Seth Brundle wrote: » Just to clarify, are all teenagers around you on bikes a menace or are you referring to a distinct group? Are the menacing teenagers around your area reflective of all people on bikes? As one of the many cyclists out there, I can say that we shall take your point on board and discuss it in our next meeting. :rolleyes:
Spook_ie wrote: » An interesting question that, at what age should people be taking their own responsabilities as road users? As a minor under 18 would seem to be too high an age, should we put them at an age of responsibility such as 16? The legal age to obtain an actual license for an A1 class moped/bike.
ewc78 wrote: » Did I say the teenagers around where I live cycling up and down the middle of the road are reflected of all cyclists did I?
magicbastarder wrote: » i'm jealous of teenagers who can wheelie down the middle of the road without a care in the world.
1 sheep2 wrote: » It's not in the slightest. There is a clear difference between encountering a parked car and a moving cyclist whose motives are unclear.
1 sheep2 wrote: » Motorists run red lights (something that frustrates me endlessly) only at the very beginning of their phases. Given the number of cars on the road, it is exceedingly rare to see a car break a light outside of that. Cyclists, on the other hand, frequently cut across pedestrians long after the pedestrian light has gone green.
1 sheep2 wrote: » There's nothing else in your post worthy of response.
Hurrache wrote: » In fairness a taxi driver (I'm gonna use the logic always used when idiots talk about people on bikes) has no business asking anything when it comes to questions about roads rules or laws.
Hurrache wrote: » Yeah, you did, twice, because you used kids as an example as to why cyclists, cyclists, not a distinct group of people, should take more responsibility.
SeanW wrote: » Because if you're going to call Irish motorists in some way bad, there has to be some kind of standard. What are you comparing Irish motorists to? World experience? European norms? Some nonsensical zero-standard that world experience shows is next to impossible? On what planet do international comparisons "not matter in the slightest" you're specifically talking trash about Irish drivers? How is that an "option"? Remember that even in countries with more severe regulations on motorists, road deaths still occur. Case in point is Canada, where laws regulating motorists are very strict and the process for gaining a full driving license takes a multitude of tests and stretches out over many years. And yet Irish drivers compare very well to Canadian drivers. Road fatalities per 100,000 people per year: Canada: 5.8 Ireland: 4.1 Road fatalities per 100,000 vehicles per year: Canada: 8.9 Ireland: 7.5 Road fatalities per billion kilometres traveled: Canada: 5.1 Ireland: 3.8 And this bears repeating, and emphasising: Canadian drivers are more heavily regulated than Irish drivers, yet Canada still suffers more road fatalities by every measure. So what in Hades are you looking for?
Zebra3 wrote: » So what's the acceptable number of people that motorists can kill each year?
SeanW wrote: » Cyclists (at least some, maybe not all) seem to have two mantras: Rules for thee, not for me. But, but,but ... whatabout!
SeanW wrote: » I've been a daily pedestrian for many years. I know when I've been in danger, and when I have not. And every time a motorist has done something that put me in danger, speed was not the issue. Every. single. time. As long as both myself as a pedestrian and the motorists are obeying traffic controls, the speed of the vehicles (within reason) is a low concern.
SeanW wrote: » A fact does not cease to be a fact, simply because it is ignored. Nor does it cease to be a fact simply because it does not "give much comfort." That's not how facts work.
ewc78 wrote: » How exactly would a 'jogger' plodding along at around 8km/hr be as dangerous as a cyclist moving at 20km/hr or more on a footpath? Oh no here comes Karen from the local couch to 5k club coming towards us, we better get out of her way before she knocks us all over...!
1 sheep2 wrote: » These people cannot see significance beyond physical injury. It's comical.
ewc78 wrote: » In fairness I've seen comments on those news items where people automatically blame the driver when no one actually knows the details of the accident. I'm sure even some of the time it's the cyclists own fault? Not that anyone deserves to die of course but there are cyclists who take ridiculous risks on the road, and before anyone mentions it, yes I know motorists take stupid risks also...
ewc78 wrote: » If everyone just agreed that there are some motorists who are arseholes and there are some cyclists who are arseholes then this back and forth debating wouldn't need to happen.
Spook_ie wrote: » Again NOT a parked car, how many injuries or deaths do you have for parked cars. I'll give you one that happened to me, I was walking between vehicles in a multistory car park and hit my shin on a towball. I'm sure it probably happens on footpaths with cars parked as well BUT I'm not the one throwing in stats about deaths to try and secure points that are actually irrelevant to the topic of cyclists riding on the footpath and cars parked on the footpath.
Spook_ie wrote: » Still unlikely to find many cases of people being being killed or injured by cars parked on footpaths, I daresay that the anecdotal evidence suports the theory that cyclists injure more peple on footpaths than parked cars.
ewc78 wrote: » Cyclists can use the footpath all they want for all I care. I run on the cycle lanes the whole time anyway, to give walkers space when they are with their kids or dogs or whatever. Dog walkers very rarely pull the dogs lead in so I just stay in the cycle lane. And I'm sure seeing as none of the cyclists here see anything wrong with cycling on a footpath, then they should have no issues with me running in the cycle lane?
1 sheep2 wrote: » This is a really disappointing contribution from a mod. Hostile, badly written... Whether you admit it or not, motorists rarely impinge on pedestrians within their sphere. It is highly unusual to see a motorist in a pedestrian zone or cutting across someone as they cross on a green light. Parking on footpaths, while annoying in the extreme (and widespread) is a different matter because a motorist will nearly always yield complete right of way to a pedestrian before doing so. So, it is very rare for a pedestrian to be affected by the rule-breaking of motorists anywhere but at crossings - i.e. in the place where the two spheres overlap.
1 sheep2 wrote: » Cyclists have repeatedly asserted that it is a minority of cyclists that break rules, while simultaneously justifying why they themselves do it.
Pinch Flat wrote: » Ah I love these cycling threads. They go off in a little meander - bit like the spin I did today. Nice and handy. Managed to avoid a footpath though. So no one was put perilously in danger.
mrcheez wrote: » Hi jogging in footpaths is very dangerous for pedestrians especially now with this virus pandemic. Every day I witness these events joggers on the footpaths spewing out germs as they run past pedestrians less than two feet from them. If any of these joggers have the virus the pedestrians have no chance they will pick up the disease. Why do the police allow this carry on. They should be protecting the elderly instead of turning a blind eye to this outrageous carryon. What do yo think out there in Ireland the country whose population do not know how to wear a facemask.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Again, this is very different to my experience. I see motorists breaking lights at the start and end of phases. I see motorists breaking lights when they get mixed up as to which light they should be looking at. I see motorists breaking lights when sun glare makes it a bit harder to see which light is on.
1 sheep2 wrote: » Renko wants us to believe that motorists routinely break lights other than in the seconds after they've turned red. What a fool.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » You may have missed the bit where I pointed out that international comparisons are entirely irrelevant. So what about Canada's rates, India's rates, or Timbuktu's rates.
The issue is the two or three people killed in Ireland each week by motorists.
No-one suggested a fact ceases to be a fact - but it puts the fact that attempts to trivialise the number of road deaths in Ireland in context.
SeanW wrote: » Where is the evidence that your "wrap everyone up in cotton wool and no-one will ever die" standard is reasonably attainable? Or, as AJR put it "the option" of not killing 2 or 3 people. You have provided ZERO evidence that your standard is feasible, and the international context proves beyond doubt that it is not. You didn't "point out" anything, you simply expressed your own opinion that all the data and evidence is irrelevant to you. You have chosen to ignore all the data, all the evidence and all international context that disproves your view, but you have given no reason why any reasonably well balanced person should follow. Your argument basically consists of sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating the same empty platitudes. As to why I mentioned Canada specifically, it's generally accepted by your ilk that Irish motorists are horrible and need to be regulated much more heavily. Yet Canada regulates its motorists much more heavily than Ireland, and yet they suffer significantly more road fatalities than Ireland by every relative measure? Why are the lesser-regulated Irish motorists involved in fewer fatalities? Surely, if you and your ilk are to be believed, Canada should have fewer road deaths per captia/vehicle/km traveled than Ireland. You have also singled out Irish motorists specifically, but given ZERO reason why Irish motorists specifically deserve the level of opprobrium directed towards them. ZERO. None. Nada. Squat. Zip. People are entitled to ask you why you are singling out Irish motorists in that way. And yet, Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be a road user.
1 sheep2 wrote: » At this point I ignore you and your haughty, irrational posts. But I thought I would just highlight for others your stupidity. Renko wants us to believe that motorists routinely break lights other than in the seconds after they've turned red. What a fool.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I've singled out Irish motorists because I live in Ireland and this is an Irish discussion site, not because they are good or bad relative to their international peers. Of course it is attainable - we just need drivers to stop speeding, drink/drug driving, using their phones and not wearing seat belts. Will that get us to zero? Maybe not annually, but it will certainly get us to zero some weeks and maybe even some months. Just because getting to zero would be very hard doesn't mean that we can throw out hands up in the air and choose to do nothing.
magicbastarder wrote: » this is article 13 from the 1997 law: "13 Driving on Footway13. (1) Subject to sub-articles (2) and (3), a vehicle shall not be driven along or across a footway. (2) Sub-article (1) does not apply to a vehicle being driven for the purpose of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the footway. (3) A reference in sub-article (1) to driving along or across a footway, includes s reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a footway."http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print#article13 also, the above mentions this lest there be confusion: "(5) A reference to a vehicle in these Regulations shall, unless otherwise specified, mean a mechanically propelled vehicle (other than a mechanically propelled wheelchair) and a pedal cycle." if you know of any superseding law, it'd be interesting to see it.
SeanW wrote: » And yet, Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world to be a road car user.
RoversCeltic wrote: » Since 2015...
magicbastarder wrote: » i know one set of lights where this is (was? - used to see it on my commute) very common. motorists breaking the lights 20, 30s after they'd gone red. regularly. i have been beeped at multiple times for not breaking the red, i.e. holding up the motorists who do want to ignore the red.https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3632057,-6.2223216,18.75z note the proximity to clontarf garda station.
