Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Spook_ie · 14-06-2020 02:14PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

With regard to cars being more visible to help prevent collisions, you can't get much more noticeable than being in a loud yellow Lambo Aventador during daylight and stopped at traffic lights.
Somehow his buddy in another loud yellow Aventador manages to rear end him.
But according to the anti-cyclists here, cars are visible enough as it is. How could that be?

Yellow Aventador Rear-Ends Identical Yellow Aventador

Probably for the usual reason of rear end accidents one stopped when the other didn't

TaurenDruid · 14-06-2020 02:20PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

With regard to cars being more visible to help prevent collisions, you can't get much more noticeable than being in a loud yellow Lambo Aventador during daylight and stopped at traffic lights.
Somehow his buddy in another loud yellow Aventador manages to rear end him.
But according to the anti-cyclists here, cars are visible enough as it is. How could that be?

Yellow Aventador Rear-Ends Identical Yellow Aventador

Eh - an accident involving someone who is apparently a serial offender, who had been illegally street racing on multiple occasions, and sought to cover up this incident by removing the licence plates?

I'd say he's a bit of a knob, and - I know this is a bit of a stretch here, but bear with me - not your typical motorist.

railer201 · 14-06-2020 02:27PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

With regard to cars being more visible to help prevent collisions, you can't get much more noticeable than being in a loud yellow Lambo Aventador during daylight and stopped at traffic lights.
Somehow his buddy in another loud yellow Aventador manages to rear end him.
But according to the anti-cyclists here, cars are visible enough as it is. How could that be?

Yellow Aventador Rear-Ends Identical Yellow Aventador

Dart boards are the same - with half the segments bright yellow, I find the darts still hit the board - very puzzling indeed.

Maybe that's not the function of high-viz though, once it's done the 'highly conspicuous bit', then that's it - perhaps we're expecting too much, don't you think ?

Spook_ie · 14-06-2020 04:09PM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

It's amazing how motorists never drive through red lights, they usually sail through them or fly through them. i guess poetic licence could be used for the former, if you've a good tailwind.

Does James May sail through red lights?

Maybe this guy flies through them

07Lapierre · 14-06-2020 04:30PM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

It is not.

Oh yes it is!

07Lapierre · 14-06-2020 04:39PM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Eh - an accident involving someone who is apparently a serial offender, who had been illegally street racing on multiple occasions, and sought to cover up this incident by removing the licence plates?

I'd say he's a bit of a knob, and - I know this is a bit of a stretch here, but bear with me - not your typical motorist.

What’s a “typical motorist”?

karlitob · 14-06-2020 04:43PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

With regard to cars being more visible to help prevent collisions, you can't get much more noticeable than being in a loud yellow Lambo Aventador during daylight and stopped at traffic lights.
Somehow his buddy in another loud yellow Aventador manages to rear end him.
But according to the anti-cyclists here, cars are visible enough as it is. How could that be?

Yellow Aventador Rear-Ends Identical Yellow Aventador

If drivers feel that cyclists must wear luminous jackets and helmets, then by the same logic cars should also be luminous and drivers should also wear helmets. You would certainly notice a luminous car.

While we all hear about road deaths, we rarely hear about those drivers who end up in the NRH and who would have benefited from wearing a helmet.

AndrewJRenko · 14-06-2020 04:59PM

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Eh - an accident involving someone who is apparently a serial offender, who had been illegally street racing on multiple occasions, and sought to cover up this incident by removing the licence plates?

I'd say he's a bit of a knob, and - I know this is a bit of a stretch here, but bear with me - not your typical motorist.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Probably for the usual reason of rear end accidents one stopped when the other didn't

Yes, one of those completely unavoidable accidents I guess - no-one can think of any possible way that anyone could have avoided crashing into a car stopped at traffic lights.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

It is not.

It is a blatant lie, though again it is interesting to see the wide gap between what I said and what others said that I said. But feel free to prove me wrong anytime with link to the post where I said that " he never sees cyclists with phones! Wait, sorry, let me rephrase... never sees cyclists using a phone to make a telephone call or to text or possibly to use some other app while cycling, because if you have a phone in an armband or attached to your handlebars you have a phone but you're not using it".

Could you really not find enough in what I actually said to argue with without having to lie?

07Lapierre wrote: »

The Stag was Brown.

And let me guess - no hi-vis markings on the vehicle at all? Fair play to you for spotting it, I don't know how anyone can be expected to see anything on the road unless it is completely wrapped in hi-vis.

SeanW · 14-06-2020 05:00PM

karlitob wrote: »

While we all hear about road deaths, we rarely hear about those drivers who end up in the NRH and who would have benefited from wearing a helmet.

Motorists already have seat belts and airbags.

If you're in a car and an accident is bad enough that your seat belt and airbag don't protect you, a helmet wouldn't make any difference. That's why motorists don't wear them.

meeeeh · 14-06-2020 05:10PM

What I find interesting is how you guys spend your free time. Looking do web cam footage of someone doing something wrong, constantly recording and finding anyone who is less than perfect and keeping a file on them, finding the most obscure links to argue the same stuff over and over again.

All this and achieving nothing. Cars still park on cycling paths and cyclists still stick to the basic rules of the road. Ironically more people actually cycle but they don't seem to join you in your 'highly effective' campaign. It seems to me that cycling is increasing despite your campaigning and not because of it.

(The sad truth is that if more people start cycling you will absolutely hate it because pensioners will be too slow and pesky kids will be taking up space on the cycling paths.)

AndrewJRenko · 14-06-2020 05:16PM

railer201 wrote: »

Dart boards are the same - with half the segments bright yellow, I find the darts still hit the board - very puzzling indeed.

Maybe that's not the function of high-viz though, once it's done the 'highly conspicuous bit', then that's it - perhaps we're expecting too much, don't you think ?

So wait, you're saying that hi-vis isn't a panacea for preventing collisions on the road?

meeeeh wrote: »

(The sad truth is that if more people start cycling you will absolutely hate it because pensioners will be too slow and pesky kids will be taking up space on the cycling paths.)

Nah, we'll love it - because if the cycle paths get crowded with the newbies, we'll just move out onto the main traffic lane.

SeanW wrote: »

Motorists already have seat belts and airbags.
If you're in a car and an accident is bad enough that your seat belt and airbag don't protect you, a helmet wouldn't make any difference. That's why motorists don't wear them.

Yes, seat belts and airbags and still way more deaths and injuries that cyclists.

I'd love to hear your source for your conclusion that helmets wouldn't make any different for motorists.

I'd also love to hear you explain why the same doesn't apply to cyclists.

Anyway, let's get back to the #bloodycyclists;
https://twitter.com/SavetheHellfire/status/1272131578370670592

FinnC · 14-06-2020 05:25PM

meeeeh wrote: »

What I find interesting is how you guys spend your free time. Looking do web cam footage of someone doing something wrong, constantly recording and finding anyone who is less than perfect and keeping a file on them, finding the most obscure links to argue the same stuff over and over again.

Have to agree. I find that all rather bizarre. Just don't understand it.

meeeeh · 14-06-2020 05:29PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Nah, we'll love it - because if the cycle paths get crowded with the newbies, we'll just move out onto the main traffic lane.

It doesn't work that way. Where I come from there are plenty of pensioners (usually a couple) who cycle longer distances even where there are no cycling paths. I'd like to see how will that work when you come upon them in some roundabout.

LeinsterDub · 14-06-2020 05:30PM

SeanW wrote: »

Motorists already have seat belts and airbags.
If you're in a car and an accident is bad enough that your seat belt and airbag don't protect you, a helmet wouldn't make any difference. That's why motorists don't wear them.

But if a helmet saves one life right?

AndrewJRenko · 14-06-2020 05:34PM

meeeeh wrote: »

It doesn't work that way. Where I come from there are plenty of pensioners (usually a couple) who cycle longer distances even where there are no cycling paths. I'd like to see how will that work when you come upon them in some roundabout.

I'll look over my shoulder, and if safe, I'll move out and pass them. If it's not safe, I'll wait behind them.

Do you actually know how to drive?

Stark · 14-06-2020 05:34PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

But if a helmet saves one life right?

The post you're quoting is also inaccurate. Serious helmet preventable head injuries are extremely common in car accidents. A lot more than one life to be saved.

meeeeh · 14-06-2020 05:46PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'll look over my shoulder, and if safe, I'll move out and pass them. If it's not safe, I'll wait behind them.

Do you actually know how to drive?

I do. What is that supposed to mean?

Considering your rage on this thread I don't think you would find it that easy when other road users will be in your way.

karlitob · 14-06-2020 05:52PM

SeanW wrote: »

Motorists already have seat belts and airbags.
If you're in a car and an accident is bad enough that your seat belt and airbag don't protect you, a helmet wouldn't make any difference. That's why motorists don't wear them.

And yet they still die.

Thargor · 14-06-2020 06:03PM

SeanW wrote: »

Motorists already have seat belts and airbags.
If you're in a car and an accident is bad enough that your seat belt and airbag don't protect you, a helmet wouldn't make any difference. That's why motorists don't wear them.

Wow you got a source for that? Thats amazing. Or did you just pull it out of your a$$ because you dont have the slightest clue what you're talking about?

Spook_ie · 14-06-2020 06:49PM

karlitob wrote: »

If drivers feel that cyclists must wear luminous jackets and helmets, then by the same logic cars should also be luminous and drivers should also wear helmets. You would certainly notice a luminous car.

While we all hear about road deaths, we rarely hear about those drivers who end up in the NRH and who would have benefited from wearing a helmet.

Luminous = Gives out light....Strange thing is that cars are fitted with luminous bits called lights

AndrewJRenko · 14-06-2020 06:54PM

meeeeh wrote: »

I do. What is that supposed to mean?

Considering your rage on this thread I don't think you would find it that easy when other road users will be in your way.

No rage from me at all.

There's a difference between other legitimate road users, and those who shouldn't be on paths or bike lanes.

Stark · 14-06-2020 06:55PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Luminous = Gives out light....Strange thing is that cars are fitted with luminous bits called lights

No-one's arguing that cyclists shouldn't have lights after dark.

magicbastarder · 14-06-2020 06:56PM

meeeeh wrote: »

(The sad truth is that if more people start cycling you will absolutely hate it because pensioners will be too slow and pesky kids will be taking up space on the cycling paths.)

huh, you really have a thing about cyclists.
for the record, if you were to browse the cycling forum here, you'd happily find that the above assumption is nothing more than ill-intentioned spite.
the more cyclists there are on the road, the safer it makes the roads for all other cyclists.

karlitob · 14-06-2020 06:56PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Luminous = Gives out light....Strange thing is that cars are fitted with luminous bits called lights

Ah a pedantic smart arse, who’s wrong. How refreshing.

- give out light or reflect light.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/luminous

But I’m sure if it helps you understand the point you could swap the word luminous in your head to reflective high visibility paint, or other application.

Interesting point that you make about cars being fitted with ‘lights’ (which makes me think that you did swap the words in your head). It’s a wonder why the gardai, the corporation and any heavy vehicle using luminous (or reflective paint, or other application). It’s like they didn’t need the extra visibility because they had lights but still went to the effort of putting it on their equipment.

Sure why did anyone ever invent high-vis in the first place.

AndrewJRenko · 14-06-2020 07:10PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Luminous = Gives out light....Strange thing is that cars are fitted with luminous bits called lights

Strange thing is the very high number of cars that have one or two or three or more of their lights not functioning.

Another strange thing is that most bikes are fitted with lights too.

AndrewJRenko · 14-06-2020 07:29PM

Anyway, back to the topic of obstructions on pavements;

Kingston Ballinteer, usually in the same spot, pushing pedestrian onto the grass;

Hillcrest, Sandyford - Mark Whelan Roofing, taking the full pavement;

Taney Road, squashing older man

Upr Churchtown Road, van on cycle path;

Stillorgan Road, pushing pedestrian out onto cycle lane

AndrewJRenko · 14-06-2020 07:37PM

And a few more;

Van on cycle lane at shops off Foster Ave

KY reg regularly blocking the path on Foster Ave;

Alltrans van blocking path and bikelane, probably to get nice and close to the pharmacy at Marlay

2 x HeatCo vans who seem to think that the pavement is their company parking facility;

TaurenDruid · 14-06-2020 07:52PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, one of those completely unavoidable accidents I guess - no-one can think of any possible way that anyone could have avoided crashing into a car stopped at traffic lights.

If you think it's normal for a) people to own Lamnorghinis, and b) for them to tear around city streets like it was a racetrack, then you've a pretty screwed up view of the average motorist and where the dangers to the average pedestrian, cyclist and driver arise from.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It is a blatant lie, though again it is interesting to see the wide gap between what I said and what others said that I said. But feel free to prove me wrong anytime with link to the post where I said that " he never sees cyclists with phones!

Not a blatant lie. Do not accuse me of being a liar. I posted about cyclists on the phone. You replied with some uber-pedantry about a phone attached to handlebars meaning the cyclist wasn't using it.

SeanW · 14-06-2020 08:13PM

karlitob wrote: »

And yet they still die.

Thargor wrote: »

Wow you got a source for that? Thats amazing. Or did you just pull it out of your a$$ because you dont have the slightest clue what you're talking about?

I know for a fact that a motorist is going to have a wide variety of safety systems. Seat belts. Airbags, crumple zones. ABS. Traction control systems. etc. I doubt your bike has any of that, hence the suggestion (from some, I don't really care) that cyclists should compensate by wearing a helmet, so that there's something between their skull and the pavement or a wall if the worst should occur.

I also know that the accidents where motor users die tend to occur at very high velocity. Things like head-on collisions which can occur at 200kph (more if one of the drivers was speeding) resulting in both cars being smashed into a million pieces, or accidents involving between cars and lorries that result in the car being flattened like a pancake.

If YOU wish to assert that motorists wearing helmets will make a blind bit of difference in such cases, it is for YOU to provide evidence for that case.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

But if a helmet saves one life right?

Yet you have given zero evidence or even suggested good cause to think that this might be the case!

07Lapierre · 14-06-2020 08:18PM

SeanW wrote: »

I know for a fact that a motorist is going to have a wide variety of safety systems. Seat belts. Airbags, crumple zones. ABS. Traction control systems. etc. I doubt your bike has any of that, hence the suggestion that cyclists should compensate by wearing a helmet, so that there's something between their skull and the pavement or a wall if the worst should occur.

I also know that the accidents where motor users die tend to occur at very high velocity. Things like head-on collisions which can occur at 200kph (more if one of the drivers was speeding) resulting in both cars being smashed into a million pieces, or accidents involving between cars and lorries that result in the car being flattened like a pancake.

If YOU wish to assert that motorists wearing helmets will make a blind bit of difference in such cases, it is for YOU to provide evidence for that case.

Yet you have given zero evidence or even suggest good cause that this might be the case!

So much wrong with this!

Why do you assume all RTA’s are car on car?
A helmet is feck all use to a cyclist hit by a car at 50kph never mind 200!

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Comments