Stark wrote: » Why would you need to know what the speed limit is if you're stuck in traffic? It's something you need to be aware of when the traffic is free flowing.
meeeeh wrote: » I think it's sad that someone would know exactly what speed limit on m50 is. It means they spend their life sitting in there. Or that they are so obsessed with it they actually studied speed limits.
Hurrache wrote: » Don't be absolutely ridiculous, if you can't remember a few places were it changes, with only a short 120kmh section and not know where that is, you've got problems, especially if you use it regularly, or don't use it that often. We're still not quite sure that the truth us, although I suspect the poster makes things up to point score, and then forgets their own stories. Even more so if you try to be smarmy about it and you're the person that brought it into the conversation.
Better Than Christ wrote: » On most urban bus routes, you're never far from a bus stop. The only way a bus driver can be guaranteed to avoid the situation you've described is to remain behind the cyclist at all times and allow that one individual to dictate the pace of the bus and its passengers. This is a very common occurrence in the bus lane along the Stillorgan Rd.
meeeeh wrote: » Iq and personal problems, what else are you going to diagnose on the basis of knowledge of M50.
Hurrache wrote: » Ignorance. If you have any other issues you feel too embarrassed about to admit publicly, I'm here all day for free consultation so feel free to PM me.
meeeeh wrote: » Ouch. A cat showed her claws and her not so goody good personality. (Someone else mentioned IQ btw, I don't bother multi-quoting different people).
Hurrache wrote: » So you just attribute what other people say to the wrong person for what, sake of yet another made up argument?
meeeeh wrote: » You thanked that statement. There wasn't much more in that post than discussion on average and above average intelligence of people who know m50 speed limits. Anyway it's pointless discussion. I can see you are a bit excited so I will leave you to it.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Like, why not take the lane behind the cyclist and make it safer for everyone? What's the point in overtaking the cyclist when you know you're going to have to stop at the lights?
Hurrache wrote: » Wait, what? Better check your online security, seems you've been hacked based on the below statement from you. Nah, I'm just messin, you weren't hacked. You were hoisted by your own petard and are still trying to excuse yourself after the weekend has passed. You don't know the speed limits of a road you use frequently (or is it that you don't drive too often, excuse the confusion).
meeeeh wrote: » That made me laugh.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I can't answer the question until I understand it properly. Speed limits don't apply to cyclists on the road. So it seems that you're talking about park bye-laws, but you still haven't clarified ; 1) What park(s) you are talking about? 2) What actual rule or law you are talking about? 3) How is the rule or law communicated to cyclists - signage, or markings on the path or other? So if can properly understand the situation, then I can answer the question.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Oh, I already answered all of those questions. (I may not have listed the actual bye-laws, but someone else certainly did link to them). Although I don't understand what difference is made by where a limit is posted, once it's clearly visible.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Concern for the cyclist. I mean, there he is, in his all-black lycra, ....
Hurrache wrote: » But he's all in black, how on earth would you even know he or she is there?
07Lapierre wrote: » Bleedin cyclists! https://twitter.com/citizenw0lf/status/1277654197983461376?s=21
TaurenDruid wrote: » Concern for the cyclist. I mean, there he is, in his all-black lycra, deliberately chosen because some non-cyclist once suggested cyclists might benefit from wearing hi-viz, so now he can't ever wear anything bright, and it's sunny out, and he's sweatin' like a pig in his helmet, which he shouldn't have to wear, but how else will he take photos of people in cars?! Anyway, he's barrelin' along, and there's a car coming up behind him, and even though he could use the segregated cycle lane, there were some leaves on it last winter, so he won't. So he's taking the lane, but thinking about that bollocks on Boards who was giving out about cyclists on footpaths, and look, sure there's a JOGGER now on that cycle lane, and the blood pressure goes up again, and dips a little when he realises he can post "What about joggers on cycle lanes, eh, EH?" on boards when he gets into town, and THAT CAR IS STILL BEHIND HIM, the MURDERER, and his blood pressure shoots up again... So, yeah, I'd hate to be responsible for an aneurysm, so I overtake as soon as possible, when it's safe to do so. If the cyclist gets in front of me at the lights, I just have to do it again. But maybe I won't get stopped at the lights.
Stark wrote: » OMG. That dog's not wearing a helmet!
ewc78 wrote: » Ultimately no one was hurt though eh?!!
Pinch Flat wrote: » black dog as well. No one has a hope of seeing him.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » You really didn't. You said : "All parks". What does that mean? All the parks in the country? All in Dublin? All in Dublin City Council? Are you just being obtuse or what? And yes, the nature of the signage IS significant, mainly because there's a chance that it doesn't actually exist. So please, what park(s) and what sign(s) please?
micar wrote: » Correct a bus stop every few hundred metres. What you are staying is that the safety of a cyclist is less important than the small delay that may be experienced by the bus and it's passengers.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
