Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

1…5253555758…124

Comments

  • #1622
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,445 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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
    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.
    You haven't been defending here. You've been vociferously attacking - remember 'lawbreaking scum'.
    My preferred term these days is "sanctimonious two wheeled hypocrites."
    Can you please answer the question about whether cyclist on pavements have intent to menace and terrorise pedestrians?
    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. Unlike the old people in Galway whose misfortune you thought was a great way to score cheap points.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #1623
    TaurenDruid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,270 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    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.

    Says it all, really...

    ===
    boards.ie default cookie settings now include "legitimate interest" for >200 companies, unless you specifically opted out!



  • #1624
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    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.

    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?


  • #1625
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,406 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    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


  • #1626
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,445 ✭✭✭SeanW


    That is some Grade A muppetry, to be fair :D

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • Advertisement
  • #1627
    ewc78
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 480 ✭✭ewc78


    Ultimately though no one got hurt or injured.. ;)


  • #1628
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,968 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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?
    Funnily enough, my memory of one particular Twitter exchange from a year or two back is just a little sketchy
    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    Why wouldn't we? He was abused by multiple abusers. Says so right in the article.
    Yeah, no, it doesn't.
    TaurenDruid wrote: »
    Says it all, really...
    I won't take any sneers too seriously from the person who didn't bother to apologise for their false allegation about me.
    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.
    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.
    SeanW wrote: »
    My preferred term these days is "sanctimonious two wheeled hypocrites."
    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.

    But like lots of people who like punching down, you're quite happy to jump to a conclusion to justify your own personal prejudice - but it is just that, an assumption to support your prejudice.

    You do seem to be taking it very personally though. Did someone cycle off with your wife or what?
    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.
    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.
    SeanW wrote: »
    Unlike the old people in Galway whose misfortune you thought was a great way to score cheap points.

    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.


  • #1629
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,780 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    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

    Ah well. At least they found a parking spot. Thank God for that.


  • #1630
    Stark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,196 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    That road layout looks confusing AF. Is that the bike lane he's parked in or is it extra social distancing space for pedestrians?


  • #1631
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,445 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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 by all international definitions, Irish air is good.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Firstly, I never used the term "terrorising". Second, yes, hypocrite is correct. Lawbreakers calling other people lawbreakers.
    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.
    I have enough experience on our streets to generalise. There are serious problems with the way cyclists behave and are regulated in this country.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • Advertisement
  • #1632
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,406 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    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?

    Well spotted! that's ok then. Nothing to see here.. move on.


  • #1633
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,968 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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.

    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.


  • #1634
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,445 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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.
    How do otherwise healthy people die in good air? The research you're quoting must be estimates.
    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.
    The difference is that one is intentional and the other is (most likely) an accident. Clear enough?

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #1635
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    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

    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 areas

    https://www.dlrcoco.ie/en/news/general-news-public-notices/reopening-blackrock-arrangements-installation-works
    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


  • #1636
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,406 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    SeanW wrote: »
    The difference is that one is intentional and the other is (most likely) an accident. Clear enough?

    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


  • #1637
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,406 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    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 areas

    https://www.dlrcoco.ie/en/news/general-news-public-notices/reopening-blackrock-arrangements-installation-works

    Could be alright...I'll give myself a slap on the wrist later for reporting possible fake news!


  • #1638
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,968 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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?

    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?


  • #1639
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,445 ✭✭✭SeanW


    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
    The case Andrew referred to, the car reversed.

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/lucky-escape-for-elderly-couple-after-their-car-reverses-20ft-down-rocks-at-salthill-promenade-1005852.html

    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.

    Unlike cyclists on the footpath. Which was the original purpose of this thread, in case we've all forgotten.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #1640
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Could be alright...I'll give myself a slap on the wrist later for reporting possible fake news!

    I'm used to fake news on here from you. Still waiting for the report on that demented killer family :)


  • #1641
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,406 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Another interesting report ...


    https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Road_Collision_Factbooks_and_Tables/Road%20Casualties%20and%20Collisions%20in%20Ireland%202017%20Provisional.pdf


    See page 9.... majority of collisions inside built up areas occur in daylight, with good visibility? Interesting.


  • Advertisement
  • #1642
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,406 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    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.

    .

    Ah that's OK then...no one was hurt (this time)..no harm done.


  • #1643
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,406 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    I'm used to fake news on here from you. Still waiting for the report on that demented killer family :)

    Get used to it so....this thread is nothing more then entertainment at this point.
    ? Which family is that then?


  • #1644
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,780 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Get used to it so....this thread is nothing more then entertainment at this point.
    ? Which family is that then?

    Eaten bread is soon forgotten:)


  • #1645
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,445 ✭✭✭SeanW


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    Ah that's OK then...no one was hurt (this time)..no harm done.
    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.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #1646
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,406 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    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.

    Here you go... as you can see cyclists jumping lights and riding on pavements are major contributors to road deaths in Ireland! This report makes for sober reading....

    https://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Fatal%20Collision%20Stats/Road_Collision_Factbooks_and_Tables/Road%20Casualties%20and%20Collisions%20in%20Ireland%202017%20Provisional.pdf


  • #1647
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    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?

    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.


  • #1648
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    Eaten bread is soon forgotten:)

    That it is, so having correctly ID'd the poster, what news of them? :)


  • #1649
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,968 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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.

    From the singing the praises of Irish motorists for only killing 2 or 3 people each week, this is a little rich.


  • #1650
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,968 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    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.

    You've missed my point.

    The point was to demonstrate just how far down the rabbit hole Sean has gone. To claim that the average footpath cyclist is 'menacing with intent' while simultaneously making excuses for speeding drivers and (at best) incompetent drivers is beyond parody, beyond ridicule, beyond comprehension.


  • Advertisement
  • #1651
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,394 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    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.

    Didn't Happy Days spawn a well used phrase after it similarly was responsible for something as ridiculous as that post? We can't use "you've been spooked" as that's already in use, "spookied", nah, other implications.

    This thread is hilariously awful though.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement