Spook_ie wrote: » @Andrew ( digging oil wells ) JRenko Did you ever go back and find out which post it was that you reckon I said Hi Viz on cars was a good idea, I'm still getting 503 errors
beauf wrote: » The issue is why certain motorists feel they have to post the same dogma in every cycling thread regardless of topic. Over and over again. Lights are more important, but it's all drowned out with this incessant chanting. Imagine if someone complained about bad parking in every motoring thread regardless of subject. Then ranted on about it for 20 pages every thread.
beauf wrote: » Probably there's so many posts and threads about hi viz it's broken the search engine.
magicbastarder wrote: » maybe it's actually found 503 search returns and given up.
magicbastarder wrote: » good god, even a bit of light humour that's not even disagreeing with you, you're annoyed at. you have my heartfelt apology.
Spook_ie wrote: » Oh it was humour was it, funny my usual humour would at least attach a smiley to it, this cyclist humour wears a little thin after a while.
Rogerrabit wrote: » Hi cycling in footpaths is very dangerous for pedestrians especially now with this virus pandemic. Every day I witness these events cyclists on the footpaths spewing out germs as they cycle past pedestrians less than two feet from them. If any of these cyclists 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.
Spook_ie wrote: » So there you go again, ignoring the fact that I posted something factual about day glow colors and cyclists try to ride over me like they're in some kind of peleton in the TdF and yet you wonder why cycling orientated threads go arseways
Spook_ie wrote: » But the whole thread did turn into a cars do this cars do that cars on footpaths, cars in cycle lanes cars in everything whataboutery, so isn't the issue then more so certain cyclists posting the same dogma in every thread they get involved in?https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113575974&postcount=6
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Are you referring to the Mayo tractor case here? Did you work out what the tractor driver was charged with yet?
beauf wrote: » They did a study which, a pedestrian,a cyclist or driver inhales the most and least pollution in a urban environment. Most was the driver, least was the cyclist.
Spook_ie wrote: » Oh it was humour was it, funny my usual humour would at least attach a smiley to it
Niner leprauchan wrote: » I linked the legislation AND quoted it. They court case is public record, you can look it up yourself if your so incapable of following links
beauf wrote: What you are doing is ignoring what is posted to just post the exact same dogma over and over.
FinnC wrote: » The replies with the multiple quoted posts are beyond ridiculous at this stage. Is this a common thing on boards?
FinnC wrote: » In fairness to him he ain't the only one. The poster he is going back and forth with the most is doing the exact same thing, it's getting boring now. The replies with the multiple quoted posts are beyond ridiculous at this stage. Is this a common thing on boards? I just keep scrolling past when I see one.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Oh! Somebody claimed something on the internet, it must be true! And why did they leave out pubilc transport users? (Got a link for that study? Or is it like Andrew's studies, which turn out to be an advocate's blog reporting selective facts from a real study, out of context, omitting many of the relevant stats?)
07Lapierre wrote: » Even if these kids were walking, they’d have to walk on the road! Parking cars on the pavement is a much bigger issue than bikes on pavements!https://twitter.com/alandub13/status/1269264706025533440?s=21
SeanW wrote: » Here's a crazy idea - maybe you should start a thread about motorists parking on the footpath?
Spook_ie wrote: » The only thing that irritates me is people who seem to have an idea that they actually know me, like yourself.
SeanW wrote: » Umm .. that's exactly what motorists do when the motorway is not tolled. If you're doing a long distance journey and you have the choice between old, general purpose single carriageways going through towns or a nice, toll-free motorway, you'd need to have a really good reason not to use the motorway.
SeanW wrote: » How could anyone misconstrue what you said? It seemed pretty clear.
SeanW wrote: » Whataboutery. Same thing.
SeanW wrote: » That is a lie. I don't despise anyone "just for cycling", I don't like hypocrites. In fact, I could live with lawbreaking cyclists, as a pedestrian you learn to "negotiate" with them an essential survival skill. Yes, on two occasions I was nearly killed or seriously hurt because of two-wheeled lawbreakers, but even that is a risk I can live with. What gets my goat is when those self-same lawbreakers bash motorists for "lawbreaking", demand extreme measures be applied to motorists, large scale speed limit reductions because "motorists bad, speed bad, lawbreaking bad". You're just one of many. I'll be more than happy to take a lecture on obeying laws from cyclists when they start.
SeanW wrote: » I'm not going to defend motorists who drive drunk, text behind the wheel or take the piss with speed, but if you and your kind insist that people "speeding" past cows and one-off houses at 55kph or go a few kph over on a dual carriageway is the great plague of our time (while menacing pedestrians off the footpaths) I'm going to have a problem with that. It's bull. You can put a 50kph speed sign in the middle of nowhere and then do a "survey" there and easily come up with such a figure. And I suspect that's exactly where this figure came from.
SeanW wrote: » Where did I defend this behaviour? I have no issue with a motorist who takes the piss being punished. Please show where I stated otherwise.
SeanW wrote: » I suspect there are motorists than cyclists at this junction. What are the proportions of RLJ'ing motorists to total motorists? RLJ'ing cyclists to total cyclists? Most red light jumping by motorists is "amber gambling" or people who dart though on the first few seconds of the red cycle. I know this because I saw it every day a daily pedestrian in Dublin. The only motorists I've seen disregarding red lights they arrived at are taxi drivers.
SeanW wrote: » "Motorists kill people" is your loaded term for road fatalities. By your terminology, the two relatives I referred to earlier are incidents of "motorists killing people" even though both cases were single vehicle collisions.
SeanW wrote: » And no, it's not possible to have zero fatal incidents. All that can be done is minimise them, and Ireland is doing well there. Even the best driver will make mistakes, because humans are imperfect and will make a genuine mistake from time to time. Road profile can contribute to an accident. Some people will use their vehicles to commit suicide, concluding that crashing into a tree at 100MPH will solve all their problems. Even the best driver can encounter something serious and unexpected. Even the best driver in the best maintained car can encounter a freak loss of control (I know because it happened to me once). And all sorts of interactions between lots of different road users can contribute something even if everyone involved is doing their best.
SeanW wrote: » I'm suggesting that a lot of avoidable accidents collisions are in fact being avoided. Motorways handle lots of safe, fast, long distance traffic. We don't drive home from the pub after a bender like our ancestors did back in the day. It's not stopping vehicular suicides, some muppetry and some bad luck. Basic logic suggests that when you avoid the avoidable, you are increasingly left with the unavoidable. And to a large extent, that's what Ireland is doing. That's why today's Irish road safety statistics compare well with both Irish history and international context. It suggests that we as a people are doing something right.
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.
Spook_ie wrote: » But the whole thread did turn into a cars do this cars do that cars on footpaths, cars in cycle lanes cars in everything whataboutery, so isn't the issue then more so certain cyclists posting the same dogma in every thread they get involved in?
07Lapierre wrote: » Here's another crazy idea...You don't like what someone posts? don't comment on it.
TaurenDruid wrote: » (Got a link for that study? Or is it like Andrew's studies, which turn out to be an advocate's blog reporting selective facts from a real study, out of context, omitting many of the relevant stats?)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b866050111185697984c86572569f0ea.svg)
