Hurrache wrote: » You're happy to accept UK stats in this instance, but completely ignore UK police forces telling people that high vis is pointless.
Spook_ie wrote: » You would think then that if most cyclists are drivers perhaps they should be more aware of the need for cyclists to follow the traffic regulations and to even use hand signals!
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Except that cyclists are supposed to be on roads, while joggers are not supposed to be on cycle lanes.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Where specifically did I justify cyclists incursions on footpaths please?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » But it is fascinating to see your efforts to constantly downplay the significance of speeding drivers, relative to your efforts to big up the significance of cyclists on pavements or cyclists breaking red lights. The evidence is fairly clear as to which category of road users results in two or three deaths a week. This is what leads me to conclude that this isn’t a safety issue at all for you. It is just your own personal bias, banging on for ten years here about the dangers of cyclists, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.
As are cyclists – you remember that article I shared with you a couple of pages back? It’s hard to accept your claim that most motorists aren’t muppets, given the evidence of widespread speeding, widespread mobile phone use, endemic red light jumping by motorists.
The only thing it proves is that, just like the smoking ban nearly 20 years ago, no country has really taken this seriously to date.
As previously explained, I’m dumping on Irish motorists because I live in Ireland and this is an Irish discussion board. I’m not singling out Irish motorists as relatively good or bad internationally. The real issue is the 2 or 3 people killed each week by Irish motorists. It’s not an either/or choice. It is possible to drive to get around, deliver to factories and worksites without killing people, if drivers will start actually complying with the law.
Could you give any examples of recent road deaths that were unavoidable, ones that wouldn’t have been avoided by better driving standards, or better medical checks for drivers? Or even hypothetical scenarios of unavoidable road deaths? What percentage of our 150-ish road deaths each year are truly unavoidable, do you think?
Spook_ie wrote: » And good for you, but of course logically, if a large percentage of cyclists also drive, then surely a large percentage of Andrews speeding drivers and non hands free phone users must be cyclists too, go figure!
07Lapierre wrote: » What offence are you referring to? What law is being broken by a cyclist (s) cycling on the road? Any motorist that can’t or doesn’t have the confidence/experience to overtake a cyclist(s) is the one delaying traffic.
07Lapierre wrote: » Bloody kids cycling on the footpath! Geez! Call the cops!https://twitter.com/edwardlamb/status/1268883410950467584?s=21
Niner leprauchan wrote: » Read my posts. I already outlined it in detail. Anywat, this thread demonstrates one thing, there's a lot of self entitled assholes in the world who plain and simple won't make any effort to facilitate others. Pedestrians, use the path and stay out of the cycle lanes and off the roads where possible. Cyclists, use the lanes where possible, stay out of the pedestrian areas and show some consideration to drivers. Drivers, use your mirrors, accept that cyclists have rights too and need space. don't park blocking cycle lanes and paths. Now, can't we all just get along?
1 sheep2 wrote: » But what about the person recording the video - presumably the father? Does being in the company of your child justify cycling on the path?
Spook_ie wrote: » Difficult because very few stats, especially for Ireland are taken or published, however, the figures provided by the ONS in the UK for deaths caused by cyclists are availiable. Apparently the figures for injuries are subject to another department. + + | Deaths (persons) | | | | Year | (a) Pedestrian hit by | (b) Pedestrian hit by | | | pedal cycle | car, pick-up or truck | | + + | | 2006 | 3 | 233 | | + + | | 2007 | 6 | 267 | | + + | | 2008 | 3 | 247 | | + + | | 2009 | 0 | 141 | | + + | | 2010 | 2 | 123 | + + So though undoubtedly motorised vehicles cause more deaths, to say that cyclists on footpaths aren't dangerous is disingenuous to say the least.
07Lapierre wrote: » Could be the mother? Cycling on the pavement is illegal,regardless of age or gender. Using a phone while cycling is also not recommended. Parking a car on the pavement is also illegal and the car that passes by is probably speeding! Did I miss anything? And I did say "call the cops!"
Pinch Flat wrote: » Yep. I've no issue cycling on the path with my son.
1 sheep2 wrote: » No issues, have you not?! How lovely. A fine role model for your son.
1 sheep2 wrote: » Lol, so you show mock outrage at the child on the footpath, which almost anyone is happy to permit.
Hurrache wrote: » Your post is Trumpian, high vis/day glo, whatever your turn on at the moment, has nothing to do with traffic regulations or law. Which you know. And why the hell are you now introducing hand signals? Are you that bored and sad for a row you need to add additional rubbish? We're sick of telling you this, I've pointed it out to you, amongst the "cyclists" you have issues with there's those who've done an advanced driving course, more qualified than any PSV driver, I think there's a HGV licenced driver, and a previous Garda driver, although I think he has the good sense not to get involved in this crap. I've only got a full clean licence for over 20 years, so what do I know.
beauf wrote: » No you didn't. But the topic was was dragged into this thread by a motorist.
Highlights • A randomised controlled trial with 6793 cyclists shows a reduced accident risk due to a yellow bicycle jacket. • The test group had 47% fewer multiparty accidents with personal injury. • The test group had 55% fewer multiparty accidents against motorised vehicles.
Make the scene safe; Take immediate steps necessary to preserve life; Take steps to preserve the scene by identifying, protecting and securing available evidence; Identify those present at the scene in particular the victim and any suspects or witnesses using form RCA20; A unit should be appointed to act as a “control vehicle” at the scene of a major collision to keep FCR updated and to remain detached from dealing with the collision itself. This unit should oversee and co-ordinate the arrival of other units.
07Lapierre wrote: » Lol yeah I know..but hey, The cars are the reason they are cycling on the pavement. Believe it or not, they would much prefer not to cycle on the pavement.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Isn't it funny though, how you never thought of doing the same kind of analysis on the causes of incidents involving cyclists, instead of rushing to the lazy hi-vis option?
Spook_ie wrote: » Did they post in a thread complaining of drivers needing Hi Viz on houses etc. Keep digging, you'll find oil yet
ewc78 wrote: » Renko certainly went full Nidge with that post alright! The mask slipped big time, the hypocrisy laid bare for all to see... I wonder is it all runners that he would plough through or has he a certain type he wants to injure. Is there a runner equivalent of the lycra clad tour de France wannabes? What if there is a young kid out for a run in the cycle lane or a middle aged woman doing her c25k run,will he cycle straight through them also because they had the nerve not to move for the great man....?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » And you were the one complaining about people not being able to put a coherent argument together? Sheesh. Are you planning on continuing to ignore the question about how you agreed that hi-vis stripes would improve visibility of a dark car in a dark environment, such as nighttime.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » It often gives me great reassurance that I'm on the right track when people twist my posts and make up stuff that I didn't actually say so that they can find something to argue with.
If you want lanes for comfort jogging, maybe you should get out and lobby for about 50 years and get a few crumbs dropped from the big table. If you run against me in a bike lane,, you'll be moving out of my way, unless you are doing so to give room to a pedestrian.
07Lapierre wrote: » You posted a link to the law that states cyclist are legally required to use cycle lanes on a pedestrianised street or on a contra flow lane. It's perfectly legal for cyclists to cycle on the road. Yes we can all get along... now that we have to adhere to social distancing, maybe now we'll get 2 meter space from motorists when overtaking.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Could you clarify what specifically you mean by 'show some consideration to drivers'? Are we talking doffing of hats here or is it the usual oul 'get out of my way cos my journey is obviously more important than yours'?
Spook_ie wrote: » Nah I think you did say you'd basically run them over if they didn't get out of your way unless they were doing it for a singular reason. EDIT Raises the question of course of if they were giving room to a cyclist on the footpath would you still be intent on making them move out of your way, them being a vulnerable road user and all that entails?
Niner leprauchan wrote: » Do you really need me to explain consideration for others or just looking for an argument? If you can safely cycle in a cycle Lane which leaves the road free, you should. Regardless of legality, it's basic manners.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » I suggest you read even further. I outlined the law and outlined a case where someone was found guilty. I'm not repeating myself over and over again
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b866050111185697984c86572569f0ea.svg)
