AndrewJRenko wrote: » Funnily enough, your definition of 'good' seems to leave a lot to be desired. Again.https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0925/1077992-air-pollution-epa
You haven't been defending here. You've been vociferously attacking - remember 'lawbreaking scum'.
Can you please answer the question about whether cyclist on pavements have intent to menace and terrorise pedestrians?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Well, yes. I'm not saying it is right. I'm not saying it is nice. I'm not saying that I agree with it. But it doesn't seem to me to be abuse in itself.
TaurenDruid wrote: » If this were facebook or whatsapp, this would be where I'd insert the gif of the guy seated on a plane, doing the massive eyeroll and facepalm. While Spook_ie is perfectly capable of answering for themselves, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that Spook_ie is probably talking about the Twitter users who called the I.T. article author a ****?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Funnily enough, your definition of 'good' seems to leave a lot to be desired. Again.https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0925/1077992-air-pollution-epa You haven't been defending here. You've been vociferously attacking - remember 'lawbreaking scum'. Remember your claim of 'unavoidable accidents' that you haven't produced any evidence of? Can you please answer the question about whether cyclist on pavements have intent to menace and terrorise pedestrians? What I think is weird is that we're making judgements based on a one-sided, utterly self-serving article. I remember Brian's reaction to the discussion. He came across as somebody who didn't like to be disagreed with, and very definitely didn't like when other people produced evidence that didn't suit him.
Spook_ie wrote: » But I assume he didn't label anyone as cvnts or on a level with child molesters and that those Tweets were from people defending cyclists, am I right or wrong?
TaurenDruid wrote: » Why wouldn't we? He was abused by multiple abusers. Says so right in the article.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Says it all, really...
SeanW wrote: » I'm using generally accepted international standards and real time air quality monitoring data. If you're looking for good quality, fresh air in Ireland, it's really easy to find.
SeanW wrote: » My preferred term these days is "sanctimonious two wheeled hypocrites."
SeanW wrote: » Yes. Absolutely. In at least one case I recall, when I had to jump out of the way of a lawbreaking cyclist, the cyclists knew that the lights were against him and that there were pedestrians crossing. The scumbag didn't even slow down or try to "negotiate" his way through the junction. I was going to jump out of his way, or I was going to pay the price. It was that simple. Cyclists don't mount kerbs by accident. They don't force pedestrians to "negotiate" with them at junctions and on footbridges by accident. They do it on purpose.
SeanW wrote: » Unlike the old people in Galway whose misfortune you thought was a great way to score cheap points.
07Lapierre wrote: » Not happy parking on the pavement, this guy definitely parked deliberately on a bike lane. Sure why not, no consequences!https://twitter.com/jturbandesign/status/1275139149570457601?s=21
AndrewJRenko wrote: » The problem with air is that we don't really have the chance to go looking for fresh air. We have to make do with the air around us, good or bad.
And over 1,000 people die prematurely as a result of poor air quality, and vehicle exhausts. brake particles and tyre particles are major contributors to this.
The hypocrite slur is particularly interesting, given the absense of any basis for it. It depends on your assumption that the cyclists who are arguing with you here are the cyclists who are 'terrorising' you on the footpaths.
You've never seen the cyclists who are arguing with you here cycling. So you've no idea about their cycling habits, good, bad or indifferent.
You're answering a different question to the one I asked. I didn't asked of they mount footpaths by accident or on purpose. I asked if they cycled on the footpath with intent to terrorise you.
You're really good at these assumptions tonight. You have no information on the incident in Galway beyond the sketchy details that appeared in the press, so you've no idea whether it was misfortune or something else. What we do know is that the driver is supposed to be in control of the car, because cars are dangerous things. We know that the senior Garda officer on the scene said it was miracle more people were hurt.
Stark wrote: » That road layout looks confusing AF. Is that the bike lane he's parked in or is it extra social distancing space for pedestrians?
SeanW wrote: » And by all international definitions, Irish air is good. If people are dying in good quality air, there must be something else going on. Irish air quality is generally good. The evidence for that is clear. Firstly, I never used the term "terrorising". Second, yes, hypocrite is correct. Lawbreakers calling other people lawbreakers. I have enough experience on our streets to generalise. There are serious problems with the way cyclists behave and are regulated in this country. AFAIK I never used the term "terrorise" I used the word menace. And yes, if a cyclist forces a pedestrian to "negotiate" with them on footways or at junctions, they are a menace. And that's intentional. So the answer to your question is YES. I don't know how much clearer I can be. Well, it's unlikely to have been intentional. It's safe to assume whoever is responsible isn't going home thinking how awesome they are. And the article said the couple were older people. There's enough information to surmise what happened. Old person did something silly. By accident.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Re the Air - what's happening is that 1000+ people are dying prematurely each year due to poor air quality. You don't get to wipe away formal research because it doesn't suit you.
It's interesting to see how the cyclists with the 10kg bikes are 'menacing with intent' while the driver with the 1-2 tonne car is just a silly accident. Have a think about that now please.
ROADSReopening Blackrock (Arrangements for Installation Works) General NewsPublic Notices Friday, June 5, 2020 BLACKROCK Next week, dlr will be commencing the installation of a new temporary one-way system, including a contra-flow cycle lane on Rock Hill and Main Street in Blackrock, which will incorporate one-way vehicular traffic flow from the outset. From Monday, 8th June the installation will be carried out in two parts with the first part involving occupation of the east (coastal) side of the carriageway whilst the second part will require occupation of the west side of the carriageway (Rock Road side). During the period of time that works are being carried DLR and our contractor will make every effort to facilitate deliveries to businesses,to keep disruption to a minimum. Phase 1 – 8th to 26th June: We will be installing a system of light segregation using a layout of black, flexible bollards, secured to the surface and separating vehicular traffic from pedestrians and cyclists in the contra flow, whilst also adapting the current traffic signal settings and installing new signage and lining for the changed layout. While sections of on-street parking will be removed to help facilitate these necessary changes, two new hybrid loading bay/car parking spaces will be installed at key locations along Main St. which will operate as loading bays up to 11 am
SeanW wrote: » The difference is that one is intentional and the other is (most likely) an accident. Clear enough?
Spook_ie wrote: » Very odd looking set up altogether, you sure it's not parking with a cycle lane by the side of it, certainly looks like marked parking but difficult to tell from the photograph if it's supposed to be one of the 2 hybrid parking/loading areashttps://www.dlrcoco.ie/en/news/general-news-public-notices/reopening-blackrock-arrangements-installation-works
SeanW wrote: » How do otherwise healthy people die in good air? The research you're quoting must be estimates. The difference is that one is intentional and the other is (most likely) an accident. Clear enough?
07Lapierre wrote: » The RSA would disagree. Speed seems to be a major contributing factor..https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Contributory_Factors_in_Fatal_Collisions/Fatal%20Collisions%202008%20to%202012_Excessive_Speed%20.pdf
07Lapierre wrote: » Could be alright...I'll give myself a slap on the wrist later for reporting possible fake news!
SeanW wrote: » The case Andrew referred to, the car reversed. Even if the presence of speed made an accident somehow not an accident, it was unlikely to have been a factor in this case. Rather, one of the elderly couple that owned the car just did something incredibly silly. .
Spook_ie wrote: » I'm used to fake news on here from you. Still waiting for the report on that demented killer family
07Lapierre wrote: » Get used to it so....this thread is nothing more then entertainment at this point. ? Which family is that then?
07Lapierre wrote: » Ah that's OK then...no one was hurt (this time)..no harm done.
SeanW wrote: » Well that's exactly the standard that some people are using to deflect from cyclists jumping red lights and menacing pedestrians on the footpath. Perhaps not your good self, but it seems to be a common standard here.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Why don't you go and read the research referenced in the RTE report, then you can come back and tell us why the international experts are all wrong. And no, it's not really clear enough at all. Are you saying that all /most pavement cyclists have intent to menace?, while the elderly couple who "it was a miracle that no one was seriously hurt" get off the hook?
Pinch Flat wrote: » Eaten bread is soon forgotten:)
Spook_ie wrote: » Do you have to have intent from someone to feel menaced? Example, If you were walking along a darkened street at 3-4 am and had 3 or 4 guys following you and getting closer would you feel menaced until they cross the road, pass you or turn off. If you have a heightened sense of possible danger then that is menace be it intentional or not. and you can feel menaced by cyclists on footpaths.
Spook_ie wrote: » Example, If you were walking along a darkened street at 3-4 am and had 3 or 4 guys following you and getting closer would you feel menaced until they cross the road, pass you or turn off. If you have a heightened sense of possible danger then that is menace be it intentional or not. and you can feel menaced by cyclists on footpaths.
