Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

TaurenDruid wrote: »

What has that photo got to do with my post?

Its a photo of a bike lane that's not blocked by bikes.

Cars parked in a cycle lane is an issue? "Cycling on paths and other cycling issues"

07Lapierre wrote: »

Probably because the bike lanes are not being used!

Good to see life slowly returning to normal. I'm expecting the ew condd off cycle lanes in the Phoenix park to be heavily abused over the coming weeks. Already saw one motorist trying it for size driving in it the other evening- so convenient that the width of the cones exactly match the width of her car.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

On every journey? Really, Andrew? Really?

Amazing how you notice that on every journey, but completely miss the cyclists flying through red lights, and cyclists using their phones while actually cycling on the road and/or footpath. (I could have just said "cyclists with phones" but that would have led to a response that it's perfectly fine to have your phone in an armband or on your handlebars).

Cognitive bias, maybe?

Yes, really.

Why would you assume that I completely miss cyclists doing those things?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Wait till you hear about cars Tauren.

I'm glad someone see's the relevance of me posting that photo!

ewc78 wrote: »

Was in the Phoenix Park meself this evening for a quick run before I headed home to greener pastures and cleaner air for the weekend.
Didn't see any cars in the new cycle lane but did see a Tour de France wannabe have a line of cars behind him because he was cycling up Chesterfield Avenue in the middle of the road rather than use the new cycle lane.
Also a bunch of rowdy youths on bikes went past me when I was running on the new pedestrian lane, cycle lane right beside them but for some reason they were on the path.
Enjoyed my run anyway.

Did you catch his team?

Fair play to him, if he's as talented as you make out the cars behind wouldn't have been able to keep up with him anyway, low speed limits in the park.

So pats on the back all round, bring badges next time so you can hand them out.

roofer1988 wrote: »

But make way for the people on bikes

And don't you dare forget it.


BTW, what's road tax?

roofer1988 wrote: »

Cyclists are always in the way

That's simply a lie.

roofer1988 wrote: »

Cyclists are always in the way,no consideration for anyone or anything only their own ego.Off crying then when someone insults them or drives passed them even though that person probably pays road tax,insurance,VRT,and tax on diesel. But make way for the people on bikes in the way putting down the day

Some drivers are so stupid , paying road tax ha ha.

wonski wrote: »

That's fantastic.

I wonder if I could be fined for parking in actual parking spot next to them, but obstructing them at the same time.

Is that definitely real, or where they doing line paintings or something? Because that looks ****ing unreal tbh....

It's real alright!

07Lapierre wrote: »

No..it's a tax paid by people who have a Private motor. Using the road is optional. I pay €750 per year for my car. My wife pays €280! That's why I hurl abuse at her every time I pass her on the road!

I pay only €56 for my 911, you should abuse all people in classic cars , clearly you are more entitled to the road than they are.

07Lapierre wrote: »

No..it's a tax paid by people who have a Private motor. Using the road is optional. I pay €750 per year for my car. My wife pays €280! That's why I hurl abuse at her every time I pass her on the road!

It has nothing to do with motor ownership. If a motor vehicle is not on the road, it is not liable for "motor" tax. You pay to use the roads with a motor vehicle, that's why people call it road tax. This is true whether the car was first registered before July 2008 (in which the bands are calculated based on engine CC) or after (in which case, it's based on CO2/km figures).

Of course, you may want to be very precise with your legal terminology, like how the Sean O'Casey bridge (and every other footpath in the State) is legally a footway, for the exclusive use of pedestrians and ... oh snap ...

Or how (on the books at least) red lights are supposed to instruct all road vehicles (including bicycles) to stop and wait, so cyclists always stop and wait there and ... umm ... uhhh ...

Come to think of it, maybe cyclists aren't really qualified to tell anyone to refer to the legal terminology.

SeanW wrote: »

It has nothing to do with motor ownership. If a motor vehicle is not on the road, it is not liable for "motor" tax. You pay to use the roads with a motor vehicle, that's why people call it road tax. This is true whether the car was first registered before July 2008 (in which the bands are calculated based on engine CC) or after (in which case, it's based on CO2/km figures).

Of course, you may want to be very precise with your legal terminology, like how the Sean O'Casey bridge (and every other footpath in the State) is legally a footway, for the exclusive use of pedestrians and ... oh crap ...

Or how (on the books at least) red lights are supposed to instruct all road vehicles[/S] (including bicycles) to stop and wait ... ah S@#%.

that's correct. Red lights mean stop, footpaths are for peds only.

Did you think I didn't know that?