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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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: » 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: » Are you suggesting that there are more cyclists cycling on pavements than vehicles parked on pavements?
TaurenDruid wrote: » I think my words were perfectly clear.
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.
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: » 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: » 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?
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: » 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).
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.
Casey78 wrote: » Out running today,was crossing at a set of lights(I and the others crossing had a green man) and a cyclist decided to keep going through the red he had. Woman with a buggy had to stop or she would have been hit. If I was any closer to him I wouldn't have hesitated in pushing him off the bike. Laughed at the youngfella who shouted, did you not see the red light you prick after him, to which the cyclist gave him the finger, the smug bastard. In other news I enjoyed a lovely cycle yesterday with my 5 year old. Only convinced him to take stabilisers off a few weeks ago and we did 12km yesterday. He was delighted with himself. Some great cycle lanes around Lucan to be fair.
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] 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.
Duckjob wrote: » Enjoy the cycling with your child. It's socially acceptable for now apparently. But do be careful to make sure he knocks the oul cycling on the head before he's eighteen (actually not sure of the exact age), because if he doesn't if he's going to undergo a horrible transformation. Of course, he'll still be the same son you know and love, but because he'll be an adult and using a bike apparently he'll cease to be a person and just become "lawbreaking scum" in the eyes of some people. He'll have to suffer abuse and have his life threatened on a daily basis over nothing by enlightened motorists, but sure that's how we roll here.
Casey78 wrote: » You have issues you need to work through. I'm not the person to help you though as I don't care.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
