TaurenDruid wrote: » I've been hit twice while on the footpath by cyclists. One young prick ended up in bushes for his trouble. The other wasn't a serious impact, cos I saw it was going to happen and braced. That's two in 18 months. I've never been knocked down by a bike. Nor did I ever say I was. Several near misses at lights. The rules of the road are for all road users, and are crystal clear: "Stop on red." Not all cyclists do. This is the bit where if we were talking about cars breaking reds, Andy would pull a figure from the air... a "study" that only publishes some of the data collected, and, hmm, yes, is several years old. Guess that's ok for pro-cyclist stuff, though. A couple of "extra" near misses in the last while, too, as I now don't get out of the way of cyclists, when they cycle towards me on their phone. They're going slow, though, and seem to retain enough peripheral permission to realise there's an obstacle ahead. The reason I'm no longer avoiding them and jumping out of their away? Might be something to do with attitude I see here, where I - a person with friends and family who cycle and who has repeatedly said they support better, separated cycling infrastructure - can get called an exaggerating liar cos it doesn't suit your cyclists-are-all-saints-narrative.
Thargor wrote: » Amazing that 2 of the most active anti-cycling posters on Boards live lives of constant cyclist related danger like this, maybe it does actually happen and isnt all lies like it seems. If it is happening with this level of regularity though I would strongly urge you to have another read of the rules of the road and the safe cross code or ask someone to help you as somethings definitely not right there, imagine if everybody was getting knocked down by bicycles twice every 18 months with multiple near misses in between? Anarchy. Ah right that must be the reason (lol).
SeanW wrote: » Firstly, I'm inclined to believe the poster as I myself have had a number of near-misses with red light jumping cyclists. But as pedestrians don't usually wear helmet cams, I did not capture these incidents on video. Nor was the Google Street View cam on the scene at the exact moment(s). [sarcasm]So that must mean these incidents did not happen :rolleyes:[/sarcasm]
SeanW wrote: » I only spent a few minutes looking for video examples because I concluded that no amount of evidence would be sufficient, ergo I chose not to waste time on a fools errand. As you continue to remind us, I have been proven to be correct.
Thargor wrote: » There must be something wrong with you if you're getting hit by bikes on a regular basis tbh, who else does that happen to ever? I would say you're probably lying about that yes or exaggerated it and now can't back down, its pretty clear from your comment history you have major issues with cycling anyway, which makes your accusations against others about cognitive bias slightly embarrassing to read.
I never said it never happens, that would be ridiculous, I just said in 9 years of commuting into town and out again ever day on a bike I've never seen it apart from a few kids. Remember you were so happy your YouTube trawl managed to find evidence to support your claims but then people pointed out the videos were 10 years old so probably not the common occurrence you make it out to be? Would you like me to show you how easy it is to find a current example of your dreaded 'footpath hogging' on Streetview or Twitter or with my own camera? Or 10 examples? They won't involve bicycles though for some strange reason. Why not take a crack at it yourself?
TaurenDruid wrote: » Exactly. Cognitive bias, massive exaggeration, and now accusing me of lying? "Affects literally nobody" - sorry, this "nobody" has had been hit - twice - by cyclists in the last 18 or so months. And had one complain about swearing when I told them to get off the ****ing path when they cycled at me through scaffolding!
SeanW wrote: » Ah yes, but when the cyclists hit you and screamed at you, you were not wearing a helmet cam so that you could post it on YouTube. And the Google Maps van didn't catch them in the act! And Thargor "doesn't see" cyclists on footpaths. So it mustn't have happened :rolleyes:
Thargor wrote: » Because one is a chronic issue affecting every street and town in the country on a daily basis that we have to suffer the effects of every day through massively increased traffic jams and general lower quality of life for everyone and the other is a rare annoyance that affects literally nobody as evidenced by people having to go back 10 years on YouTube to find examples. Bit of cognitive bias yourself there that you can't figure this out for yourself.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Largely explained by cognitive bias. You see what you want to see.Even on this one thread - supposed to be about cycling on footpaths - there are now far more photos of cars parked on footpaths than there are of cyclists cycling on them. There are YPLAC facebooks and twitters for the UK and Ireland, a 'Dublin's parking clowns' facebook, and so on. There are literally tens of posts on this thread alone condemning motorists - as a block - for the behaviours of some. It's an odd sort of person who clicks in to random Journal stories on fatalities to offer an 'RIP' on stories where they don't know the person or their family.
TaurenDruid wrote: » Speculate, estimate and cast aspersions all you like, when it suits you. Bring out the pedantry rulebook when it doesn't... :rolleyes:
TaurenDruid wrote: » I think my words were perfectly clear.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Are you suggesting that there are more cyclists cycling on pavements than vehicles parked on pavements?
TaurenDruid wrote: » It's an odd sort of person who clicks in to random Journal stories on fatalities to offer an 'RIP' on stories where they don't know the person or their family.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » The 'illegal, annoying, inconsiderate' bit is indeed the same. The frequency isn't the same. The frequency of parking on footpaths is in a totally different ballpark to the frequency of cycling on footpaths, probably something like a 50:1 ratio. And I suspect that the loudest complainers about cyclists on footpaths are also those who don't see any issue with the 'just for a few minutes' parking on footpaths and cycle lanes that is endemic, so endemic that it is used in advertising, without anyone in the car industry thinking that there is anything unusual about it.https://twitter.com/DublinPedaller/status/1282236371890036736?s=20 That's the difference.
Thargor wrote: » Its not that people dont die, its that absolutely nothing happens and yet people get orders of magnitude more angry and excited about it than the exact same behaviour in other forms of transport that does have consequences (and not just death or injury, Dublin and the rest of our towns and cities are clogged up horrible place to walk around with literally no need for it), its a mystery long discussed on cycling forums as to why bicycles attract such irrational hatred. Its usually dismissed as whatboutery but it is a genuine mystery and the reason these threads go on so long. A good example often used is the comments on something like a Journal article where someone gets killed by a hit and run or drunk/distracted driver, it will attract 2-3 RIP comments and then be forgotten about, however a cyclist doing literally anything with no consequence will attract hundreds of enraged responses, and all cyclists will be grouped together and guilty by association in a way you'd never see with motorists, same for threads on here.
magicbastarder wrote: » i once did this on a bike. it was awful, six stitches in my chin and a new frame.https://twitter.com/AlanDub13/status/1282051123336163328
TaurenDruid wrote: » And someone parking on a footpath or a cycling lane almost never leads to injury or death. But Andy will still post his photos, and it's still illegal, annoying, inconsiderate and shouldn't be done. Same as cycling on the footpath.
07Lapierre wrote: » As someone who’s been hit by a car and had to spend time in hospital and still have the scars, Cars are a much bigger problem. Cycling on the Pavement is illegal and inconsiderate. But it rarely leads to serious injury or death.
Charles Babbage wrote: » Your oft repeated proposition that anti social behaviour is acceptable so long as people don't die is morally bankrupt. A civilised society regulates behaviour short of death.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » If you look closely, you can see the streams of blood dripping down the bridge from all the people that were maimed by those menacing cyclists.
Spook_ie wrote: » Personal level none, reality ALL activities incur some degree of risk. Should we fence off or cover all areas of water, after all drowning claims 100+ lives per year, should we ban farmers from farming, after all 18 fatalities in 2019, you seem to be infering that a mythical figure of zero is attainable when it isn't.
meeeeh wrote: » I posted an article about the accident that happened between child cyclist and older woman. Two other cyclists died in preceeding weeks, one went cycling into mountains and was found dead presumably after a fall. Another a man in his 60ies I think was hit by a train at night on protected railway crossing. The last one could be suicide and it's likely alcohol was involved. (A child was also injured but not killed after woman hit him on a road crossing). It's easy to make simplistic statements about road users and blame everything on the cars and car drivers. Because there are still relatively small numbers cycling it's easy to do that in Ireland but in reality you have to expect reasonably responsible behaviour from all road users.
micar wrote: » If you scroll over to the right.....fairly play to the cyclist in high viz with a helmet who has stopped at the pedestrian crossing allowing a number of pedestrian to cross the cycle lane even though he's the one with the green light....quite responsible of him.
TaurenDruid wrote: » You don't regard cycling on the footpath as a problem. As a pedestrian who has been hit twice in the last 18 months or so by cyclists on a footpath - I and others do regard it as a problem.
