magicbastarder wrote: » you don't understand. she said 'will'. it's always going to be a some unspecified point in the future, which means she can stand over her mean spirited comments and claim that the point hasn't been reached yet.
Thargor wrote: » Doing my usual 20km commute every day uninterrupted since the start thankfully but Im always here if you need further correction. Cant say any of these pensioners or pesky kids you claimed were such a menace have inconvenienced me in any way but maybe others feel differently? Personally I take great pleasure in seeing it and always will, I know I always did whenever I saw true rush hour cyclist traffic on the continent. Maybe you could post some examples if and when you find them?
meeeeh wrote: » Will do.
Thargor wrote: » I seriously doubt you will, your bitter and nasty prejudices are all in your head and dont line up with the real world thankfully.
meeeeh wrote: » No need to lose your temper like that. I hope you are a bit less hot-headed when commuting.
meeeeh wrote: » Yes my comments are mean spirited but they are in the spirit of the thread.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Simple probability.
Thargor wrote: » Funny how you're not allowed enter any kind of motorsport competition without a helmet seeing as they're so pointless isnt it? I suppose you know best though...
AndrewJRenko wrote: » And yet for all those safety systems, still far more people are killed in cars than on bikes - so surely there is room for more, something like the F1 drivers or rally drivers would use.
Alternatively, perhaps you'd like to come up with some actual evidence that cycle helmets save lives for cyclists in Ireland?
karlitob wrote: » If you’ve yet to realise, you’ve hit on the point that a number of us are making. How on earth does a yellow jacket and a flimsy bit of polystyrene and plastic in anyway ‘compensate’ for the wide variety of safety systems that I enjoy as I driver. When other drivers contemptuously suggest that ‘cyclists should......insert ineffective safety measure here’ it’s hard to take it seriously.
Spook_ie wrote: » Spot two horses or maybe the same horse twice,
The only real way for cyclists to be safe is segregation from cars and that means taking road space from cars.
It won’t be lost on you that no where in the world do the suggestions that I made exists - so it’s quite hard to provide the evidence that you so dearly need.
I would imagine that you’d be first into the high vis yellow paint shop and flimsy hat shop when the evidence is provided.
Thargor wrote: » Hmmm? Losing my temper? But you admit yourself that you're being deliberately mean spirited in literally the post before that one.
meeeeh wrote: » That's called adapting to the situation.
karlitob wrote: » 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.
magicbastarder wrote: » thank you for explaining that to us. please let us know at what point we will start hating multitudes on bikes, because we are not aware of a threshold.
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.
SeanW wrote: » The helmet is another compensatory mechanism. Most likely any collision you're involved in will be at a lower speed than the typical motor vehicle on motor vehicle collision, but you have no safety devices whatsoever versus the motorists that have loads of them. As has been correctly pointed out, a helmet won't do a cyclist much good if they're hit at 200kph
SeanW wrote: » but that's not the use case helmets are designed for.
meeeeh wrote: » Thats not true. I have nothing against cyclists, I was delighted when I saw more older people, teenagers and families on the bike. But there are certain type of attitudes that I can't stand and they are all displayed in this thread. I wouldn't be surprised if personal messages or mentions in cycling forum were posted so as many as possible would show up in here to slap each other's backs. Personally I even have no issues with cyclists on the pavements of they ard empty I even go on them myself sometimes when cycling with kids. If there are no people there it allows cars get by faster and in that way nobody is inconvenienced. However there is no point discussing something like that because testosterone in this thread would just drown any nuances. I don't define myself as cyclists as I don't define myself as walker, runer or a driver however I do all of it. You won't put me off cycling but if I wasn't cycling already you are certainly not making it attractive with your attitude.
Pinch Flat wrote: » Garda twitter account makes for intersting reading. The amount of drivers that have zero regard for drink driving, speeding, driving when banned or with out insurance makes for some interesting readinghttps://touch.boards.ie/thread/2058082376/1/#post113592462 Thankfully I'm cocooned from all of this in my safety bubble of hi vis when cycling.
TaurenDruid wrote: » One drunk driver is too many, obviously. But as a percentage of drivers? The number of drunk/drug, banned, and/or uninsured drivers is tiny.
Thelonious Monk wrote: » https://www.thejournal.ie/letterkenny-road-death-5122912-Jun2020/ Basically another murder on the roads probably a speeding drunk. One RIP post. Imagine the difference if it aas an article about cyclists, or a cyclist hit someone? What's up with that?
Pinch Flat wrote: » But on the increase.....speeding during the current restrictions are a big problem. Drug driving and drink driving also on the up. More people are chosing to drive uninsured. But hey cyclists on footpaths. :rolleyes:
micar wrote: » Exactly.......cyclists the scourge on our roads.
07Lapierre wrote: » I think it’s started already! Geez a bicycle traffic jam!https://twitter.com/__kbaker__/status/1272246876985843712?s=21
07Lapierre wrote: » Anecdotal evidence is useless i know... but this photo shows a car on a residential street ( where speed limit is 30 or maybe 50) ... I'm sure their were no head/neck injuries. (note that the airbags have not gone off?)
TaurenDruid wrote: » Selective, though. The account is there specifically to highlight exceptions. One drunk driver is too many, obviously. But as a percentage of drivers? The number of drunk/drug, banned, and/or uninsured drivers is tiny.
SeanW wrote: » Image must be fake, staged or at the very least, well timed. There are a dozen cyclists waiting at a red light! And not one jumper Firstly, anyone going fast enough in an urban area to flip their car in a collision should not be on the road. Second, if the driver walked away from that, it was because of both their seat belt and the fact that the top of the car frame did not crumple. Now, if they didn't have seat belts or an upper frame on their vehicle, like say, a motorcyclist ...
Thargor wrote: » Adapting to the situation where you have nothing to add to your embarrassing bitter and nasty statements so you just claim the other person is losing their temper because you cant think of any actual points, gotcha. Any luck with your search for any examples of cyclists complaining about all the new cyclists on the road yet?
meeeeh wrote: » Any luck figuring out what future tense actually means. When I see something I'll update you but my life is not spent looking for pictures to moan about. Andrew could do that for you. BTW time to change the record insults are getting a bit repetitive.
SeanW wrote: » Firstly, anyone going fast enough in an urban area to flip their car in a collision should not be on the road.
Thargor wrote: » No need for the temper tantrum, stop posting nonsense and lies and you won't have these problems.
meeeeh wrote: » That doesn't count as any more original.
Thargor wrote: » What?
magicbastarder wrote: » as per 07LaPierre's video, it's actually easier to flip a car than you'd think. here's one from kimmage road from a couple of years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSXtAzagREQ
meeeeh wrote: » Original insults. You are really not very good at it.
