magicbastarder wrote: » i, for one, am heartened that a thread and about cycling safety is still going after over two and a half thousand posts. you must have a lot of constructive feedback to present, it's great to see people so interested and invested in cycling.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » If you don't consider the possibility that a tree or two will be blown down in a storm, you're not a very good driver. Perhaps we should be focusing on getting drivers to take responsibility for their driving rather than playing word games?
meeeeh wrote: » Any event someone is not expecting is unexpected for them. Or is my understanding of word unexpected wrong? Let's look at dictonary: If an event or someone's behaviour is unexpected, it surprises you because you did not think that it was likely to happen.https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/english/unexpected I can do word definitions all week. I find it quite entertaining.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » If you go out driving in a red storm warning, and you crash into a tree, that's not an unexpected event. If you go out driving on the morning after a yellow or amber storm warning, and you fly around a blind bend and crash into a tree, that's not an unexpected event.
micar wrote: » If the cycle lane was mandatory I'd end up past ballymun and at the m50 flyover rather than being able to cross 2 over lanes of traffic onto collins ave.
07Lapierre wrote: » Making cycle lanes mandatory? The vast majority of our cycle lanes are not safe, not fit for purpose etc. That's why they are not mandatory. Also, sometimes cyclists have to turn right...that's easier to do if your in the right hand lane.
GT89 wrote: » Im all for better cycling facilities but unfortunately on Dun Laoghaire seafront where half the road is now a cycle lane there are still cyclists cycling on the bloody road. Why when they now have a perfectly safe cycle path. I bet it that sometimes cycle lanes are unsafe but where there is perfectly good segarated cycle are there still cyclists on the road. In these cases the use of the cycle lane should be mandatory and clearly indicated by signage this can be agreed between councils and cycle groups surely.
SeanW wrote: » But suffice it to say that some of those shouting the loudest about "road safety" are not really primarily concerned with that, but rather a broader agenda. And they've let the mask slip a few times.
Spook_ie wrote: » 》snipped《 wish you'd answer one post in a post and not fvck off all over the thread, makes it much easier to follow
Spook_ie wrote: » I dunno, but it just strikes me that if the Dutch think it's a good idea then it probably is, don't you think the Dutch have far more experience of cyclists and mobile devices than the Irish.
Spook_ie wrote: » [
Spook_ie wrote: » Don't think so, just a suggestion but maybe it should be enshrined into the statute books somewhere , to be sure.
meeeeh wrote: » I'm also pretty sure some force of nature events would be considered an accident in every sense. Unless you are planning to fine the tree falling on the road or car/bike/pedestrian for being on the road to be hit by the tree.
Zebra3 wrote: » So if someone in their car ploughs in to you while they're driving along and texting their mate, and they tell you afterwards it was an accident, you'd have no issue with that?
The thread has plenty to do with road safety.
Tea drinker wrote: » 100% agree, waste of money and inconsiderate to not use a cycle lane where people have gone to the expense and time to provide it. With the same caveat that you used - if the cycle lane is safe. TBH I think where possible it's better to have the vehicles and traffic segregated completely. E.g. a wall or hedge between them, and in quite a few places it is possible. I would prefer to cycle away from traffic and fumes, can't see why there's not more push for it. Some of the South Dublin parks adjacent the N11 give a peaceful alternate to cycling beside noisy smelly traffic.
Tea drinker wrote: » Today I had a an issue at Sandyford, where they are working on the new cycle lane. The existing lane ends abruptly at the start of the works with the predictable result that cyclists will merge into the traffic. Unfortunately the van driver going past the cyclist didn't anticipate this with the result the van driver veered sharply into my lane (oncoming traffic) as he overtook the cyclist that abruptly merged into traffic. Stupid stuff.
Tea drinker wrote: » Cyclist shouldn't have been oblivious to traffic but it's more the driver should have seen an issue emerging
micar wrote: » Stupid stuff by the cyclist or the van driver or both
accident noun UK /ˈæk.sɪ.dənt/ US /ˈæk.sə.dənt/ A2 [ C ] something bad that happens that is not expected or intended and that often damages something or injures someone: Josh had an accident and spilled water all over his work. She was injured in a car/road accident (= when one car hit another). Synonymscollision (ACCIDENT)crash (ACCIDENT)smash (ACCIDENT) UKsmash-up UK
SeanW wrote: » Well this part is just flat out untrue. Accident carries no meaning other than unintentional. Any collision is also an accident unless there was specific intent. This thread has very little to do with road safety.
Zebra3 wrote: » I'll take it then you don't have any accidents to inform us about then.
Zebra3 wrote: » Whether I speak another language is irrelevant.In English the word accident implies that there is no blame.
In a thread about safety and one in which people are discussing who is to blame for a huge number of road deaths, it is of the utmost importance to use the correct terminology.
meeeeh wrote: » I made a claim about road stats, you are nitpicking about use of word accident. You can supplement it by murder if you wish for what I care it still won't change the point about statistics. And yes I used accident because that would be the closest word for road incidents in my mother language translates to. Again you are just using that as an excuse to argue point I didn't make. So no I won't be bullied in some nonsense argument. Frankly your dismissal of my explanation just points out to an ignorance about how certain things can be be lost or different in translation. My guess would be you do not speak any foreign languages.
Zebra3 wrote: » What accidents? Please show us an accident that happened on Irish roads. Go on, just one.
Zebra3 wrote: » I didn't criticise your use of the English language. You made a claim about accidents, all I did was ask you to give proof of one accident on Irish roads. So can give you give any proof of a single accident?
meeeeh wrote: » I'm not a native speaker and if the only way you can challenge what I wrote is to criticise my use of English language then knock yourself out.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Where exactly did I challenge you wearing a helmet? If you want to wear a helmet, knock yourself out (pun intended). If you're going to have a go at parents who choose not to wear helmets on bikes, then be prepared for people to question why you don't have a go a parents who choose not to wear helmets in cars, where the majority of deaths (incl head injuries) happen?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » If you want to understand the challenges of cyclists being around drivers going at 120 kmph and higher, keep an eye on the Garda Traffic twitter account. Sadly, it is very much not a problem restricted to motorways.https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/1284528246374227970
What problem are we trying to solve here?
AFAIK, it's not illegal for a cyclist to use their phone. It's pretty dumb, but not illegal.
Maybe rather than imagining, maybe you could tell us - what's your view on the number of cycli《 Snipped rest of drivel that doesnt concern Dutch law on moble use 》 The point of the OP was about cyclists being a danger to pedestrians. Every set of road traffic data in the world shows clearly where the actual danger to pedestrians comes from. It's not cyclists.
