AndrewJRenko wrote: » Err, yes, it would. That's why it's really important for the majority of drivers that use their phones while driving to put them away. That's what I meant when I mentioned 'the real issues'.
Spook_ie wrote: » Oh you mean I should vary the game a bit and start seeing if they can spot drivers on phones etc. rather than just cyclists. Difficult to implement given the lack of visibility as to what people are doing in their cars when behind them, usually obscured by headrests etc. but sure I'll give them a choice of games to play.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I omitted burgandy because it is an 'or' relationship - black or navy or burgandy - so removing any one doesn't change the validity of the other two. Now back to the issue - isn't nightime a black or blue environment?
Who mentioned side? The reflective stripes would be on the boot as well. That would definitely improve the visibility of parked cars at night (that blue or black environment you mentioned earlier), right?
Are you saying that you have difficulty seeing pedestrians crossing the road in daylight?
And yet, you did.
Spook_ie wrote: » Because a parked car isn't moving and already has the major PPE ( lights, reflectors etc. ) built in.
It doesn't really make sense to change timetables for a temporary scenario. Yes, I did seem the parked on the footpath and bike lane outside Lidl Rathfarnham a couple of times, reducing the space available for social distancing.
magicbastarder wrote: » cheers, didn't spot that.
magicbastarder wrote: AJR has the *worst* holiday photo album i've ever seen.
magicbastarder wrote: » AJR has the *worst* holiday photo album i've ever seen.
TaurenDruid wrote: » The elevated position of cyclists means it's really visible when they're on their phones, too. A surprisingly common phenomenon, even among the ones who aren't deliveroo or justeat delivery guys.
Spook_ie wrote: » Ah so you want to give me that fuzzy warm feeling of yours that you say you get when people change the meaning/context of your posts, I don't get that warm fuzzy feeling just a sense of sorrow at your desperation to make a point of something I didn't actually say.
Spook_ie wrote: » You mean in addition to the standard reflectors as fitted to car bumpers and integrated into rear light clusters not to mention the reflective number plate No I said that daylight is better than headlights at night time, do you not think you see more clearly in daylight? Ah but you were so busy cycling off to photograph builders vans you didn't get to photograph any of these buses parked on the footpath. As to changing the timetable, surely if there are that many excess buses you just start back on the return jouney and be either an early bus or a later bus but probably by on 10 mins or so either way
Spook_ie wrote: » No I said that daylight is better than headlights at night time, do you not think you see more clearly in daylight?
Spook_ie wrote: » Ah but you were so busy cycling off to photograph builders vans you didn't get to photograph any of these buses parked on the footpath. As to changing the timetable, surely if there are that many excess buses you just start back on the return jouney and be either an early bus or a later bus but probably by on 10 mins or so either way
Weepsie wrote: » Vast majority of them are related to car parks and how they inconvenience drivers parking.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » But can we get back on the topic of obstructions on pavements please?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Really not that common in my experience. I have seen it, and I have cringed, because I know if I tried it, I'd end up with a smashed phone. The Deliveroo guys often have the phone mounted on the bars or in a harness on their arm.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Really very common, actually. Easy to see, as a pedestrian or from the bus. Having the phone mounted on the bars or in an armband is still using a phone while riding. Worse still, obviously, is the cyclists using a phone while cycling on the footpath...
AndrewJRenko wrote: » That's not as far off the truth as I'd like.
Really not that common in my experience. I have seen it, and I have cringed, because I know if I tried it, I'd end up with a smashed phone. The Deliveroo guys often have the phone mounted on the bars or in a harness on their arm.
Except I didn't change anything in your post. I omitted one of the three colour options that you listed, as I didn't really know what you meant by a burgundy environment. Feel free to explain if you like. That doesn't change anything about what you said about reflective strips providing more visibility in black or blue environments (like nighttime). Strange how you seem to be backing away from that now.
Yes, rear reflectors in addition to those standard ones, as used by the Gardai and other emergency vehicles. Surely you'd agree that this would improve visibility for more people. Imagine if you had crashed on a dark road or motorway resulting in your lights not working. Surely this would give approaching traffic more of a chance to see you and stop before they crashed into you? I really don't know why drivers won't take responsibility for their own safety.
Spook_ie wrote: » Keep digging, its only you making a fool of yourself. If i thought that wrapping my car in hi viz would be useful I would but given the status of size, permanently available lights, reflectors and reflective surfaces, all of which make the car more visible than a cyclist or pedestrian under (pretty much) all conditions i think not.Now if i were to be parking the car in hazerdous positions like doing road side checks (Garda), Highway repairs (Council vehicles) or Breakdowns (AA and other services ) id give the idea of Hi Viz tape etc. more merit on a vehicle.
Yes, very much better in daylight. So do you need pedestrians to wear hi-vis in daylight to prevent you from hitting them if they cross the road?
Didn't keep the video footage at the time. In fairness, it was in the early weeks of the lockdown, so maybe it took them a little while to work out their procedures. I really don't know much about managing bus timetables, so I'll stay schtum on that one. I know, that's an unusual approach around here.
liamog wrote: » I don't see anybody cycling on pavements in those photo's.
Spook_ie wrote: » If i had meant nighttime I would have said night time, you deciding to remove wording for selective quotes doesn't change that fact
Spook_ie wrote: » Do you actually read replies that you are given
Spook_ie wrote: » I would prefer all vulnerable road users to be wearing bright day glow colors during daylight hours, I see nothing wrong with that thought seeing as conditions can change in short spans of time from sunny to overcast to rainy, during each of which a pedestrians visibility would be enhanced by day glow or very bright colors
Spook_ie wrote: » How convenient to not think about those huge double decker buses being parked on the footpath, imagine how many people were nearly killed by their actions, absolutely shocking behaviour by DB and you should have reported it.
ewc78 wrote: » That Ford Kuga is lovely, I've one in Grey.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » There's no visibility issues when on a bike, so if it was happening a lot, I'd be seeing it. Having a phone mounted on the bars or in the armband isn't using the phone, just like having a phone mounted on the dashboard isn't using the phone, once they're not watching Netflix on it or similar, as I've seen a few drivers doing in the past year or so.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Well, I'm seeing it, but as you've proved time and time again on this and other threads, in your opinion cyclists' sins are minor and forgivable if they even ever happen, but motorists are the devil. I'm not talking about unused phones on a dash or in an armband, I'm talking about cyclists actively using the phone, either talking or texting, while cycling.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I know, right. It's almost as if the frequency and impact of cycling on pavements isn't as high as some people would have you believe. There's no visibility issues when on a bike, so if it was happening a lot, I'd be seeing it. Having a phone mounted on the bars or in the armband isn't using the phone, just like having a phone mounted on the dashboard isn't using the phone, once they're not watching Netflix on it or similar, as I've seen a few drivers doing in the past year or so. Whether you meant night time or not, you said 'black or blue or burgundy environments'. Night time is generally a black or blue environment, so it fits what you said, whether you had the foresight to realise it at the time or not. But what did you mean by 'black or blue or burgundy environments'?
Yeah, I read that reply, but it's really a different scenario. That refers to Garda cars. I was referring to your car, which could find itself on a road at night with no lights in a number of different situations. Surely given that said yourself that hi-vis stripes would improve visibility in black or blue environments, it's hard to see why you haven't fitted hi-vis stripes to your car. I'm really not convinced by your commitment to hi-vis at all.
This is fascinating. So everyone should, according to you, everytime they leave their house, be wearing bright day glow colours at all time, so that drivers don't have to be bothered with looking properly. I presume you live this principle yourself, and everytime you leave the house, even when walking to the car, you wear the oul dayglo to show consideration to other drivers right?
No? Ah here, you're not really into 'walking the talk' on this hi-vis thing, are you? Why would you assume that I didn't report it? But seriously, do you think it's OK for buses to be blocking paths and bike lanes at the time that they've never been needed more? Why can't he just wait on the road?
That's the one they target at the yummy-mummies, right, so they can pretend they're exploring wild territories when they drive to the park to do their bootcamp, right? :D:D:Dhttps://vimeo.com/220458259 How Kuga are you, me arse! If you were really Kuga, you'd be running or cycling to the park for your bookcamp, missus.
Spook_ie wrote: » A burgundy environment can you see the burgundy coloured car? Would you like me to post an image of a blue environment?
Spook_ie wrote: » Let me think about this, hmmm, how many times in over 45 years of motoring have I been on the side of a road with no lights at night for any reason. Oh I just realised never, how many times have you been stuck with no lights? Anyways, I don't think emblazoning all cars with HI viz Garda style markings is actually going to do any favours to Garda already working in a stressed environment, or to any of the service agencies that rely on people picking them out from the crowd on a busy road. Nah for the short walk from my house to the car on the driveway I figure if I'm going to be hit by a car there they would have missed seeing the wall as well, however, I do use HI viz if for any reason I'm ( for instance ) changing a tyre unless I'm on a particularly busy stretch of road of motorway when I'll call out the AA to do it for me. After all they have lovely HI viz and flashing Amber beacons just for that reason.
Spook_ie wrote: » Did you report it?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Yet again, it is fascinating to see the painfully stretched excuses for the rationale for everyone but you having to act on your hi-vis recommendations.
In all my 45 years of cycling, I've never been nearly hit by a driver who didn't see me because of my lack of hi-vis - so presumably you're now ready to step back on your recommendation for all cyclists to wear hi-vis at all times?
It's just a bit silly now, isn't it? Clearly, this is pure hypocrisy, using hi-vis as a stick to further your anti-cycling agenda. It's nothing to do with safety or visibility.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Yes, I'd like you to post images of the blue and black environments that you had in mind when you referred to hi-vis giving improved visibility to cars in those environments. Presumably, you had some kind of real environment in mind, not something from a cartoon or art project. So yes, please post some photos of the real black or blue environments you had in mind.
Yet again, it is fascinating to see the painfully stretched excuses for the rationale for everyone but you having to act on your hi-vis recommendations. In all my 45 years of cycling, I've never been nearly hit by a driver who didn't see me because of my lack of hi-vis - so presumably you're now ready to step back on your recommendation for all cyclists to wear hi-vis at all times?
And it's funny how you don't worry about service agencies ability to pick out their people on the road when everyone in the whole world is wrapped in hi-vis every time they leave their house, but you do worry about them picking out their cars - the cars with blue flashing lights and GARDA written in big letters on them.
You didn't answer my question, so why would I answer yours? BTW, just three buses at the terminus this morning, down from the five or six that would have been there in March.
magicbastarder wrote: » just back from a spin out to the stables with my wife; she's decided to start cycling out. and has made the wise decision to cycle on the footpath on a couple of sections. i've been going with her for her first few spins, and this morning, on a narrow road which is only a few hundred metres long, she went ahead of me cos i wanted to sit behind and further out (because the road surface is poor and i wanted any overtaking motorists to give plenty of room). obviously a couple of motorists didn't like this, because one beeped her horn and the other chap blew at us and ended up driving alongside us, clearly furious. i don't know exactly what he was saying because his window was up, but i can guess; he was accompanying his ire with hand gestures. he overtook coming up to a set of red lights so gained nothing. i guess the motorists made that typical motorist mistake of not understanding perspective and thinking that we were cycling side by side - not that that would excuse him - but just goes to show. and the funny thing is the footpath is in absolute **** along that road too. it's the stretch between the northside NCT centre and the side of the runway, would be a decent amount of cycle traffic on it.
magicbastarder wrote: » FWIW, it happened here:https://www.google.com/maps/@53.4150834,-6.2653065,3a,75y,302.35h,70.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDl8NCCYFZig1PJ-qR1vaUA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 there's some fairly poor infrastructure nearby too - there's a cycle lane/cycle path all the way up the R108 through ballymun, as far as ikea, and then it disappears for maybe 200m - right as the slip road to join the M50 begins. it ends at the lights at this junctionhttps://www.google.com/maps/@53.4053556,-6.2653618,3a,41.2y,344.68h,75.83t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLRnYpPlief0UbSNsqYFJlQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 and then maybe 100 or 200m further on, pops back into existence again. so they're asking cyclists to drop down into the road just at the point where motorists are gunning it to get to the M50 - the lights above are the last lights you're likely to hit before going southbound on the M50. and you can't even use the path there either, the shrubs have overgrown it.
Roger the cabin boy wrote: » Can anybody here argue that the road in question is fit for purpose?
Pinch Flat wrote: » Some previous contributors to this thread will think it's absolutely fine. Just make sure you have your hi vis on :rolleyes:
Hurrache wrote: » Sure they can tell them themselves as they shout out the window on the way to the SPSV centre nearby.
Spook_ie wrote: » Do tell, in which bit of MagicBastarders post does he mention Taxi,Hackney or Limousine? Is it not more probable that they were ordinary motorists.
