Spook_ie wrote: » Yes I do ignore posts on Twitter, as so many of them are actually from a non professional social media employee lumped into the position by some other non media savvy boss. Look at the standards from our own Garda
Niner leprauchan wrote: » If you can safely cycle in a cycle Lane which leaves the road free, you should. Regardless of legality, it's basic manners. Do you notice it's only cyclists that have an issue with what I'm saying? No drivers trying to justify their behavior, or pedestrians.
Niner leprauchan wrote: » If you can safely cycle in a cycle Lane which leaves the road free, you should. Regardless of legality, it's basic manners.
micar wrote: Park on footpaths Park on double yellow lines Park in loading bays Park in disable spots Park in family spots Parking up 2 parking spots Park in cycle lanes Stop in yellow boxes blocking traffic Double park
ewc78 wrote: » whatabouteries
ewc78 wrote: » whataboutery.
magicbastarder wrote: » a chap i know is a garda, who about two years ago went out on his bike, and his wife took a photo of him before he left because she thought he looked ridiculous. hi vis cover on the helmet, hi vis jacket, hi vis gloves and hi vis overshoes. about half an hour later he was knocked down; on a roundabout by a driver who didn't see him.
Roger the cabin boy wrote: In this instance, nothing is foolproof and I suspect he wasn't seen simply because the driver wasn't looking. No amount of visibility would have changed that and no amount of helmets or PPE would stop serious injury.
Roger the cabin boy wrote: » In this instance, nothing is foolproof and I suspect he wasn't seen simply because the driver wasn't looking.
Spook_ie wrote: » I'm not so sure of that the first mention of hi viz ishttps://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113608213&postcount=273 from BeardySi, unfortuneately Boards 503 errors is preventing me from seeing where he posts, so I can't confirm or deny if he is a motorist The second mention ishttps://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113625830&postcount=376 from Galwaytt again 503 errors prevent me from seeing his posting history but I gather he is a motorcyclist and has valid views on visibility of vulnerable road users. The 3rd mention ishttps://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113625930&postcount=379 from Magic who I know is a confirmed cycling fan and from there we know where it went
magicbastarder wrote: » you'll find most cyclists are only delighted to use well designed cycle lanes which are not blocked by cars. that (note: i said 'well designed' rather than 'safe' because 'well designed' should encompass safe, and more besides).
ewc78 wrote: » Your Guard friend was lucky he didn't go for a run in the Cycle lane though, Renko would have cycled straight over him!
ewc78 wrote: » ... I've seen plenty of cyclists fly thru roundabouts expecting everyone to stop for them, . .
beauf wrote: Driving or cycling. Irish roundabouts are mostly a game of chicken.When I think about it over the last 30 yrs or so that style of driving or cycling has become normalised everywhere. Far less yielding giving way and far more drive or cycle at people to bully them out of your way. Maybe it's a reflection of modern society values.
ewc78 wrote: » micar on a roll with his video clips... There is literally thousands on YouTube of cyclists behaving badly, not sure anyone is sad enough to go compiling them all and posting them on here.. You need a degree in whataboutery to be that much of a saddo.
SeanW wrote: » Cyclists aren't supposed to be on footpaths either, but guess what ... that doesn't stop them.
SeanW wrote: » You spent the whole thread screeching "bUt MoToRiStS bReAk MuH sPeEd LiMiTs" in a thinly veiled attempt to deflect from cyclists and their profilgate lawbreaking. You may not have explicitly justified it, but did so much what-about-ery that it was basically the same thing.
SeanW wrote: » I freely admit to having a "bias" against sanctimonious hypocrites. You got me there
SeanW wrote: » I'm fairly sure I referred to the majority of motorists as not being muppets. The majority of motorists do not drink and drive. The majority of motorists do not take the piss with speed. (I'm ignoring your 98% figure given the reasons outlined earlier). Fairly sure I accepted that some motorists are muppets.
SeanW wrote: » Where to start? :eek: Firstly, the smoking ban and road safety are entirely different problems. Secondly, I find it difficult to believe that nowhere in the world do people care about road safety? That's a really big claim!
SeanW wrote: » I've proven that your dumping on Irish motorists is unwarranted. As to the bolded statement, that is simply not true. You have provided no evidence for it, I have provided strong evidence against it.
SeanW wrote: » As to the percentage, I suspect the majority were unavoidable. I base that view on both Irish history and global context. I suspect that the vast majority of avoidable fatalities are actually being avoided. We have motorways to safely accommodate fast long distance traffic, and our culture no longer glorifies driving home from the pub after a bender. That's avoiding a lot of accidents collisions.
SeanW wrote: » As to specific incidents, the two relatives I referred to earlier, I suspect both of those cases were unavoidable, though naturally I can't be sure.
SeanW wrote: » Well, if 98% of drivers break urban speed limits and the majority of cyclists are also drivers, then it must follow that the majority of cyclists are also speeders. The bastards :rolleyes:
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Do you expect motorists to show consideration by using motorways where available and staying off local roads?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » And again that warm, fuzzy feeling to see the wide, open water between what I actually said and what you said I said.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Thanks for confirming that I didn’t justify cyclists cycling on footpaths.
It’s a bit more than that though. It’s not just about the terrible cyclists who keep presenting indisputable facts to you about the damage done by motorists in these discussions. Your posts here and elsewhere and your long track record, ten years banging this drum, show a degree of venom against cyclists simply for cycling.
Whether you accept the 98% or not, it doesn’t change the facts.
It doesn’t change the facts of the Liberty Insurance survey showing that the majority of motorists use the mobile phones while driving. It doesn’t change the facts of the Aviva insurance survey showing Irish motorists 2nd worst in Europe for checking social media while driving.
It doesn’t change the Luas red light camera results showing that 88% of red light jumping in Dublin was done by motorists.
Honestly, this is very strange , if not bizarre. You’re saying that it’s not possible to drive without killing people. Have you ever killed anyone while driving? I certainly haven’t. No-one in my family or circle of friends has killed anyone. But you’re saying it’s just not possible to drive without killing people? Do you think you might have gone too far down the rabbit hole?
Again, really, really bizarre – your suggestion that the majority of road deaths were unavoidable. Are you suggesting that most of these were unavoidable deaths?;
Hurrache wrote: » Brilliant, but expected. A commonality when people get too invested in stupid arguments is to ignore the professionals who contradict them. How are you getting on with your back up argument of hand signals and the associated incredible danger? It's quite a joy knowing how irritated people on bikes make you when your sitting on the ranks. The sooner things get back to normal the better, mentally, for you. You'll spend less time here chasing your own tail, at least you'll have the opportunity to have a rant with a real person and get it out of your system.
beauf wrote: » No one replied to the first one. So it doesn't count. They did the 2nd because it was the usual rant. Hence it was what initiated the whole sorry mess about hi viz.
Spook_ie wrote: » Until such time as error 503 doesn't keep appearing when I'm searching yeah, but I'm not so sure I said that at all. Maybe you can link me to where I said it so I can check its context.
Spook_ie wrote: » Yeah but as a motorcyclist does he not have the right to his own opinion on using Hi Viz without the usual suspects trolling him, and thereafter trying to troll myself because I dared to mention that Day Glow actually works better on a bright day.
