Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes it's incorrectly labelled as Motor Tax because it isn't a tax on the motor, this is why I say that people (cyclists in particular ) need to stop screaming it's a Motor Tax not a Road Tax because it's actually neither.

It's explained fairly clearly here

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html#l07de2

Anyway time for a change in topic. Thinking of buying a new helmet - any thoughts on colour? Burgundy? Black? Blue?

Pinch Flat wrote: »

It's explained fairly clearly here

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/motor_tax_and_insurance/motor_tax_rates.html#l07de2

Anyway time for a change in topic. Thinking of buying a new helmet - any thoughts on colour? Burgundy? Black? Blue?

I've a white bike and a red bike......should I buy two helmets..... a white helmet for the white bike and a red helmet for the red bike.

But what about jackets?????

Slippery slope !!!!!

micar wrote: »

I've a white bike and a red bike......should I buy two helmets..... a white helmet for the white bike and a red helmet for the red bike.

But what about jackets?????

Slippery slope !!!!!

I bought a new helmet recently. It's black. It brings out my rebellious streak

Spook_ie wrote: »

D in a Burgundy or Black or Blue environment either of which I wouldn't pick the corresponding color, maybe go for a dayglow orange.

You should pass this advice on to your taxi buddies with burgandy or black or blue cars. Big Yellow Taxis - that's what we need.

SeanW wrote: »

I don't know where and when you cycle, but I've almost never encountered a motor vehicle so badly lit that I had difficulty with it.

In all my years on the road, I've encountered dangerously unlit vehicles precisely twice. Every other motor vehicle has been lit well enough for me to see and gauge its position in good time.

So hi-vis for those two cars would definitely have improved their visibility, right?

SeanW wrote: »

As has already been explained, cars already are hi-vis.

Except when they’re parked, with lights off, and no reflectors facing the oncoming traffic.

SeanW wrote: »

It took me all of 5 seconds in each case to determine that the alleged lack of visibility of the parked cars had nothing whatsoever to do with the accidents. The first 3 of the cases were caused by drivers that should not have been on the road, and Mountmellick needs a bypass desperately. Nothing to do with hi-vis whatsoever.

Are you sure that hi-vis on the parked cars wouldn’t have helped to improve visibility for the very dodgy drivers? Surely it’s worth a shot?

SeanW wrote: »

(Twitter link removed for brevity) What in Sam Hill does this have to do with hi-vis?

Sorry, I thought that hi-vis was the automatic solution to all problems on the road? It seems to be the kneejerk reaction to every incident involving a cyclist, so why shouldn’t there be the same reaction for every car crash?

SeanW wrote: »

Your bicycle doesn't need hi-vis when it's parked in the bike shed. Likewise, a car that is parked in accordance with generally accepted parking conventions does not have elevated visibility requirements. Additionally, motor vehicles do have hazard warning systems for emergency situations when they may be stopped in a precarious position. This has been explained before.

My bike shed isn’t on a public traffic with speeding drivers flying by, updating their WhatsApp groups. Surely hi-vis on parked cars, the ones with no lights on and no reflectors on 3 out of 4 sides would help?

SeanW wrote: »

Many Irish roads are more useful to motorists than cyclists because the people using them are travelling longer distances, e.g. more than 4 miles. If you're going to be doing something like cycling on a rural road late at night you should take into account the possibility that a motorist (being an imperfect human) might not be expecting you. Like I said, any good motorist will try to avoid mental blind spots and treat with respect the road users they observe, but you can help by erring on the side of being more visible, not less.

Actually, most journeys drivers on Irish roads are doing very short distances. About 70% of journeys under 4km, a distance easily walked or cycled are done by car.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/more-than-half-of-travellers-use-cars-for-journeys-under-2km-1.2303451
But regardless of all that, surely you can help reduce the risk from bad drivers by erring on the side of having your car more visible (using hi-vis stripes on all sides) and not less, when parked on public roads with lights off and no reflectors on three out of four sides?

Pinch Flat wrote: »

This thread is starting to get me a bit concerned. Thinking if painting the storck hi vis just to be sure.

Hi viz or day glow? There’s a difference you know! Get it wrong and you putting motorists in danger!

07Lapierre wrote: »

Hi viz or day glow? There’s a difference you know! Get it wrong and you putting motorists in danger!

Yes good point. I'll make sure to consult the numerous studies cited on this thread, all of which have been most informative. Definitely won't be painting it burgundy.

But yeah let's make sure we keep motorists safe as a priority on the roads. They have a tough time as it is with all that "road tax" they're paying.

Anyway, back on topic

Beside Nutgrove Vets, almost entire pavement gone;



Stepaside village - if only there was some kind of hint or message to the driver that parking on the path here wasn't a good idea


Stillorgan Road beside UCD - almost permanent obstruction outside building site;


Regular obstruction outside Apache and Dominos Dundrum

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah let's at least stop using mobile phones while driving cycling


Of course if we had put hi viz stripes on it as per AJR he would have seen it

Good job the gobsh1te cyclist was wearing hi-vis otherwise we'd all have assumed it was a ghost or something.

But anyway, are you sure you want to play this game, Spook? It was a mother and three kids that this trucker killed while playing with his phone.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It was a good win, in fairness.

Actually it was stab in the dark it just seemed to me that the same smug back slapping was going on here. It's always the same type, a 30 but more likely 40+ man in some middle management job, possibly public sector where they can feel self important. Of course they have an SUV because it portraits active lifestyle and active lifestyle really doesn't count unless everyone knows you have it. You can't drive to Kerry in a saloon or Ford Focus. I would be pretty sure I described almost all cycling warriors here except one who is a woman.

Anyway I'm sure you will persuade all the people who are just like you.

magicbastarder wrote: »

I know how motorists love to stereotype cyclists, good to see you conforming to that stereotype.

I didn't say all cyclists. I don't do God and I cycle with kids, it's probably not owning an SUV that saves me drom being completely obnoxious.

magicbastarder wrote: »

you mean i'm a warrior?

<beams with pride>

I was always confused whether I was a warrior or in the cycling brigade. I think membership of each is mutually transferable.