Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

SeanW wrote: »

Well, since your misleading phraseology eliminates any question of fault or cause - which are wildly different in each case - we can safely assume this is a lie. Or at the very least, an intentional gross over-simplification.

Lies? All the data is publicly available. You seem to have missed the point that the majority of road deaths are motorists killing motorists and passengers, so you’re going to have to work hard to find a way to blame cyclists or pedestrians for those deaths.

SeanW wrote: »

Passive, yes, but it has the benefit of not being intentionally misleading.

It is intentionally evasive, yet another continuation of the trend of ‘accident’ to avoid any possibility of motorists being required to take responsibility for the carnage they cause on the road.

SeanW wrote: »

This is misleading. Sentences in the English language that describe ones actions typically follow the form of Subject > Verb > Object. So when you take a statement like "motorist killed pedestrian" the implication is clear. The motorists was the primary actor and their actions lead to the death of another.
In probably about 8 of the 27 cases last year, this was likely to be true. In the others where pedestrian culpability was a factor, if not the factor, this statement is misleading. When addressing all the cases collectively, it is most accurate to use neutral terminology because the causal factors in each case are likely to have been different.
Except when you use loaded and intentionally misleading terminology like "motorist killed pedestrian" that closes off any question of culpability and makes clear your view that the motorist is the sole cause in all cases.

It’s a simple physical fact. If the car, van or truck hadn’t been there, no one would have died. The death is the direct result of the presence of vehicle.
It doesn’t reference culpability either way. I’ve never suggested that the motorist is the sole cause in all cases.

SeanW wrote: »

And cyclists are dangerous too, pedestrians routinely have to jump out of their way or be hit. Leading to examples such as another poster on here who has been hit by cyclists twice in the past 18 months.

Cyclists can indeed be dangerous, and there are decades of road safety data to help us understand this danger. In Ireland, the death ratio is about 2000:1, deaths by motorists to deaths by cyclists. In the UK, it has been around 1000:1 in recent years, any time that I’ve looked. So the degree of danger arising from cyclists is very, very small in proportion to that arising from motorists.

SeanW wrote: »

Interesting how "RSA Research" is gospel when it proves your case, but "fatally flawed" when it doesn't :rolleyes:

No research is gospel from any source. Any sensible researcher will look at research with a sceptical eye and identify issues. The absence of any actual definition of culpability in what the RSA researched means that their culpability statistics are meaningless.

SeanW wrote: »

Well, 8 pedal cyclists died last year, but are much smaller proportion of the Irish population than pedestrians, so yes, you are at higher risk.

That’s not quite the same format of calculation that you did to rule out any need for helmets for pedestrians though. You really should redo that calculation. You might learn something from it.

SeanW wrote: »

Not just relative it translates to absolute figures as well, as my calculations showed. In absolute terms the chance of a person dying on Irish roads overall is 0.003% per year. (150/5,000,000) * 100.
This clearly shows that Irish drivers are safe, not just in relative terms but in absolute terms as well. And that's ignoring collisions caused by non-motor road users.

In absolute terms, motorists are still killing two or three people each week, mostly other motorists or passengers, in mostly avoidable collisions.
Which reminds me, are you going to produce any examples of what you claimed were mostly unavoidable collisions? You said that most road deaths were unavoidable, but you failed to produce anything to support this.

SeanW wrote: »

As to the question of "speeding in urban areas" there are relevant points being ignored.
Ireland has some strange definitions of "urban area"

The fact that Irish road fatalities are so low indicates that most motorists do not take the piss.

Also, the fact that hit-and-run collisions are rare indicates that motorists who do cause accidents typically do "take responsibility in law" for them. So that claim is also false.

Can you please clarify your point about ‘strange definitions’? Are you suggesting that it’s OK for road users to make case by case definitions about which traffic rules they comply with?

SeanW wrote: »

So why then, all this concern about speed? Because it sounds to me very much like what you're saying is: "motorists are not obeying the rules and I want them to obey the rules or be made to obey the rules, because rules are rules and I want to cram down rules for no reason other than to cram down rules. Road safety? That's just a talking point."

Not so much a ‘talking point’ as a behaviour recognised by pretty much every safety authority in the world recognises as one of the top three or four causes of road deaths. In every collision, the speed has a huge impact on the outcome.
Pedestrians hit by a car...at 30 km/h – 1 in 10 will die, at 50 km/h – 5 in 10 will die,at 60 km/h – 9 in 10 will die
https://rsa.ie/Documents/Campaigns/Wrecked/Downloads/Speed%20and%20Speeding.pdf

SeanW wrote: »

I didn't re-watch the video, but it looked like the cyclist acted too late for the trucker to slam on the brakes. Also, because the truck driver is a human being, they might have panicked and did what they could think of in the 0.5 seconds they had to react. The cyclist was clearly at full fault.

How could the driver have time to steer away but not have time to brake? I’d have thought any decent driver could do both at the same time?

SeanW

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Lies? All the data is publicly available. You seem to have missed the point that the majority of road deaths are motorists killing motorists and passengers, so you’re going to have to work hard to find a way to blame cyclists or pedestrians for those deaths.
It is intentionally evasive, yet another continuation of the trend of ‘accident’ to avoid any possibility of motorists being required to take responsibility for the carnage they cause on the road.

Perhaps you'd prefer the term "intentionally misleading" to "lie"? That's fine by me. As to the term "accident" being used to avoid any possibility of motorists being required to take responsibility, that is more than misleading.

Accident - in the context of road safety - simply means collision that was unintentional. Nothing more. Accident is of course used in other contexts. However there are times when terms like incident or collision are more appropriate, such as if the incident may have been intentional, such as vehicular terrorism or suicide. When referring to a group of collisions, any number of them may have been intentional, so it's best to use neutral terminology.

As to the concept of "avoiding responsibility" I don't know what other way to describe that than a lie. Hit and run collisions are rare, the data on that is clear. Most of the very, very, very small minority of motorists who cause injury or death are held to account.

It’s a simple physical fact. If the car, van or truck hadn’t been there, no one would have died. The death is the direct result of the presence of vehicle.
It doesn’t reference culpability either way. I’ve never suggested that the motorist is the sole cause in all cases.

Again, misleading. The death may be solely due to the presence of the vehicle but it may have been caused by (i.e. is a direct result of) the actions of the other road user. A driver driving a vehicle lawfully is entitled to be where they are. The other road user (if their actions or negligence causes a collision) is not.

Cyclists can indeed be dangerous, and there are decades of road safety data to help us understand this danger. In Ireland, the death ratio is about 2000:1,

So ... it's fine that a pedestrian can be hit twice in 18 months by lawbreaking cyclists? No need to control the behaviour of hypocritical lawbreakers when they menace, bully and hit pedestrians as a matter of general routine, then complain about generally safe motorists? You couldn't make it up :eek:

No research is gospel from any source. Any sensible researcher will look at research with a sceptical eye and identify issues. The absence of any actual definition of culpability in what the RSA researched means that their culpability statistics are meaningless.

They went by death certificates, but they did identify causal factors like not looking before crossing, standing in the road (suicides maybe?) or lying down in the road. They also identified factors like intoxication, very often to extreme levels.

Can you please clarify your point about ‘strange definitions’? Are you suggesting that it’s OK for road users to make case by case definitions about which traffic rules they comply with?

In case it was not obvious, I'm referring to rural countrysides that are regulated as "urban areas" because there happens to be a town or village a mile away. "Urban areas" that have one-off houses, green fields, cow pastures etc. that cause the definition of "urban area" to stretch credibility.

As to a cyclist talking about "make case by case definitions about which traffic rules they comply with?" that's a joke given the absolutely abominable way that Irish cyclists behave. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Not so much a ‘talking point’ as a behaviour recognised by pretty much every safety authority in the world recognises as one of the top three or four causes of road deaths. In every collision, the speed has a huge impact on the outcome.

So, to take this logic to its conclusion, why not just reduce all speed limits to 5kph?

How could the driver have time to steer away but not have time to brake? I’d have thought any decent driver could do both at the same time?

Obviously you've never heard of braking distances?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braking_distance

TaurenDruid

TallGlass2 wrote: »

You've never cycled this patch.

Point blank you don't leave that part of the road, end of.

I done it once and it was a ****ing disaster.

Plus the wall is a good leg rest when stopped.

Oddly, many cyclists do...

TaurenDruid

Spook_ie wrote: »

Doesn't have to be a spokesman for any bloc, it's just an observation on cyclists in general. Give them an foot yard and they want 1.5 meters

Give them a cycle path and they want a footpath, too. And a bus/cycle lane.

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Oddly, many cyclists do...

Cyclists come in all shapes and sizes, just like motorists, just like all people really. What works for one cyclist doesn't work for another cyclist, for all kinds of reasons. That shouldn't be a big surprise.

I've explained to a few people during online discussions it's not really a great idea to have a cycling club training spin of 10-20 people doing 30-40 kmph using a shared path/cycle lane that has families out for a walk with little kids and dog walkers. Usually when they think it through, they can get their heads around this fact.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Though not a peep to say about the vast quantities of whinging and moaning from the lovely folks of Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock about the vast imposition arising from the total of 4km of cycle facilities in a county that has thousands of kilometres of road space - Okaaaay then.

Perhaps a peep from the RNLI though

https://afloat.ie/port-news/dun-laoghaire-news/item/46934-new-dun-laoghaire-cycle-lane-blocks-primary-access-route-to-lifeboat-station?fbclid=IwAR3Vp_fpD-rwK6TbaN4d3tYIyCspYFyvy7vTf7B9id7FLvvsHVCszfONKT8

magicbastarder

"A reported delay of up to 20 minutes in accessing the Dún Laoghaire RNLI Lifeboat Station, claimed to be because of a new coastal cycle route, “cannot be substantiated”, a senior official at Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has said."
https://irishcycle.com/2020/07/20/claim-of-highly-popular-new-cycle-route-delaying-lifeboat-access-cannot-be-substantiated/

magicbastarder wrote: »

"A reported delay of up to 20 minutes in accessing the Dún Laoghaire RNLI Lifeboat Station, claimed to be because of a new coastal cycle route, “cannot be substantiated”, a senior official at Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has said."
https://irishcycle.com/2020/07/20/claim-of-highly-popular-new-cycle-route-delaying-lifeboat-access-cannot-be-substantiated/

Think I'd put more faith in

Mr Stephen Wynne, the Lifeboat Operations Manager at RNLI Dun Laoghaire told Afloat the lifesaving charity was currently 'in consultation with DLRCoCo to find an amicable solution'.

than any Irish Cycle and Ginty article

TaurenDruid

Today's adventuring cyclists' observed: two muppets on the south quays approaching O'Connell Street. Well - I was legally approaching O'Connell Street. The cyclists - lycra clad, helmets, expensive looking racers, so not average commuters - are on the road, cycling towards Townsend Street. So, the wrong way down a one-way road. Seeing other cyclists heading towards them in the same lane - they hop up on the footpath and continue cycling. Towards more pedestrians!

Like, where does the entitlement end?

magicbastarder

uh, d'olier street by the sound of it.

SeanW

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Today's adventuring cyclists' observed: two muppets on the south quays approaching O'Connell Street. Well - I was legally approaching O'Connell Street. The cyclists - lycra clad, helmets, expensive looking racers, so not average commuters - are on the road, cycling towards Townsend Street. So, the wrong way down a one-way road. Seeing other cyclists heading towards them in the same lane - they hop up on the footpath and continue cycling. Towards more pedestrians!

Like, where does the entitlement end?

But but, but, but whatabout, whatabout motorists? Here's some pictures of crappy parking jobs! Motorists are horrible! And speed, they break "urban" speed limits past one-off houses and agricultural fields in the middle of nowhere. The monsters!

Am I doing this right Andy?

micar

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Today's adventuring cyclists' observed: two muppets on the south quays approaching O'Connell Street. Well - I was legally approaching O'Connell Street. The cyclists - lycra clad, helmets, expensive looking racers, so not average commuters - are on the road, cycling towards Townsend Street. So, the wrong way down a one-way road. Seeing other cyclists heading towards them in the same lane - they hop up on the footpath and continue cycling. Towards more pedestrians!

Like, where does the entitlement end?

I'll add what I saw today.

Driving along the Oscar Traynor road this morning heading towards santry and saw 2 pieces of poor driving in the vicinity of cyclists in the space of 2 minutes

1) Car pulls out in front of me. Further up the road and coming up to a junction with green light, the motorists goes past a cyclist cutting across the front of him to turn left........motorist could not be bothered holding back as the cyclist was going straight .....would have taken a few seconds.

Then further up the road

2) two lanes of traffic .... bus lane and lane for other vehicles..... now it is after 10am so it's ok to use the bus lane even thought vast majority of motorists don't.

Myself and another car ahead of me. Cyclist in the bus lane. Car goes by me at higher speed in the bus lane..... .because of cyclist is forced to slow down....car ahead of me and the cyclist are more less parallel. The car in the bus lane then over take the cyclist with a gap few inches ....at the point of overtake, the cyclist, car in bus lane and car in front of me are parallel. The wheels of the car in the bus lane barely touched the white lane dividing the 2 lanes.

The cyclist raised is right hand in frustration more or less saying ....WTF

The car then moves into the left lane ahead of the car in front of me and as approaches the roundabout that over the M1 goes all the way around to go onto the M1 ......not a blink of an indicator in sight

Two impatient drivers who have no interest about the safety of vulnerable road users.

SeanW wrote: »

But but, but, but whatabout, whatabout motorists? Here's some pictures of crappy parking jobs! Motorists are horrible! And speed, they break "urban" speed limits past one-off houses and agricultural fields in the middle of nowhere. The monsters!

Am I doing this right Andy?

You forgot to mention the factual stuff about the carnage caused by motorists on the road.

https://www.thejournal.ie/wexford-crash-witness-appeal-5159922-Jul2020/

Make sure that you never attribute any responsibility to the driver. Always use language like 'the truck lost control'. Never say anything like 'the driver lost control'.

https://www.buzz.ie/news/man-killed-in-tipperary-road-crash-in-which-driver-failed-to-remain-at-the-scene-378160
Don't use 'misleading' terms like hit-and-run, make sure you smooth it out as much as you can by saying nice things like 'failed to remain at the scene'. Another of those 'exceedingly rare' events I guess.

When you see lots of people being killed on the road, make sure that you don't attribute any responsibility to drivers. Say things like 'we're all baffled as to how this could possibly happen (even though we all see drivers speeding, using their phones, and busy pub car parks all the time).

So maybe a D+ grade there Seanie - lots of room for improvement.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Perhaps a peep from the RNLI though

https://afloat.ie/port-news/dun-laoghaire-news/item/46934-new-dun-laoghaire-cycle-lane-blocks-primary-access-route-to-lifeboat-station?fbclid=IwAR3Vp_fpD-rwK6TbaN4d3tYIyCspYFyvy7vTf7B9id7FLvvsHVCszfONKT8

Actually, no - no peep from the RNLI, beyond saying that they're in discussions. No mention from the RNLI source of the 20 minute delay.

Strange how the RNLI never had any little problem with traffic in Dun Laoghaire ever before though. Curious that....

shootermacg

Plenty of flat earth types in here. You can bring a horse to water...but some horses simply refuse to drink because they took the wrong side in an argument and their pride simply will not let them back down.

So they double down, seemingly keeping their pride intact, all the while being laughed at by all and sundry.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Actually, no - no peep from the RNLI, beyond saying that they're in discussions. No mention from the RNLI source of the 20 minute delay.

Strange how the RNLI never had any little problem with traffic in Dun Laoghaire ever before though. Curious that....

Yeah curious that they never had to go a longer way to get the boat station if they lived/worked/socialized on the wrong side of town because of a new one way system, still I suppose they'll just rescue the people in trouble faster to make up for lost time!

Thargor

SeanW wrote: »

But but, but, but whatabout, whatabout motorists? Here's some pictures of crappy parking jobs! Motorists are horrible! And speed, they break "urban" speed limits past one-off houses and agricultural fields in the middle of nowhere. The monsters!

Am I doing this right Andy?

Uh-oh looks like Seans regressed back to his totally non-idiotic "someone doing something on a bicycle is exactly as dangerous with exactly the same potential consequences as doing it in a 2 ton car, I am very clever" phase...

SeanW wrote: »

Perhaps you'd prefer the term "intentionally misleading" to "lie"? That's fine by me. As to the term "accident" being used to avoid any possibility of motorists being required to take responsibility, that is more than misleading.
Accident - in the context of road safety - simply means collision that was unintentional. Nothing more. Accident is of course used in other contexts. However there are times when terms like incident or collision are more appropriate, such as if the incident may have been intentional, such as vehicular terrorism or suicide. When referring to a group of collisions, any number of them may have been intentional, so it's best to use neutral terminology.

‘Accident’ is far from neutral terminology. It is the complete opposite of neutral. It is absolutely intended to take motorists off the hook. That’s why police forces and road safety authorities don’t use it. They use crash or collision, or RTC. You don’t speed by accident. You speed as a result of the pressure you put on the accelerator. You don’t use your phone while driving by accident. You use your phone as a result of a decision to put your entertainment ahead of the safety of those around you. You don’t drink drive by accident. You drink drive as a result of a decision to ignore the safety of those around you.
In almost every case when ‘accident’ is used in the media, it is misleading - as no information is available when reporting a particular crash about actual cause, so concluding that it is an ‘accident’ is factually incorrect.

SeanW wrote: »

As to the concept of "avoiding responsibility" I don't know what other way to describe that than a lie. Hit and run collisions are rare, the data on that is clear. Most of the very, very, very small minority of motorists who cause injury or death are held to account.

You seem to have a rather narrow interpretation of ‘taking responsibility’. If you don’t crash, then you’re OK apparently.
I’d have a broader view of what ‘taking responsibility’ means. For a start, it means putting your phone away while you drive. It means not taking stupid risks with your speed or your road position or your cutting of corners that will get you to the next set of lights a few seconds faster. That’s the kind of responsibility that many motorists fail to take all the time, all around us.
Keep an eye on the dashcams thread in the Motors forum and see how many of those drivers are taking responsibility.

SeanW wrote: »

Again, misleading. The death may be solely due to the presence of the vehicle but it may have been caused by (i.e. is a direct result of) the actions of the other road user. A driver driving a vehicle lawfully is entitled to be where they are. The other road user (if their actions or negligence causes a collision) is not.

Congrats. That’s a very big leap for you (the bolded piece), so I’m glad to helped to bring you along the journey. You’re right to say it may have been caused by the actions of the other road user. It’s worth remembering that for most road deaths, the other road user is another motorist – so one or other motorist is to blame.

SeanW wrote: »

So ... it's fine that a pedestrian can be hit twice in 18 months by lawbreaking cyclists? No need to control the behaviour of hypocritical lawbreakers when they menace, bully and hit pedestrians as a matter of general routine, then complain about generally safe motorists? You couldn't make it up :eek:

I never said it was fine that anyone would be hit by anyone at all. Having spent about 15 years in work around the city centre, there’s something strange about those reports. I’ve never been hit by any cyclist. I’ve seen a few cases of cyclist behaviour that put themselves in danger. I’ve seen a small number of cases of cyclist behaviour that put other people in danger. I can’t recall a single incident of seeing a cyclist hit somebody over that time.
I’m sure those incidents do happen. I’m also very sure that they are very few and very far between. The absence of any court reports or KSI reports or medical research is a very strong indication that the outcome of such incidents is minimal.

SeanW wrote: »

They went by death certificates, but they did identify causal factors like not looking before crossing, standing in the road (suicides maybe?) or lying down in the road. They also identified factors like intoxication, very often to extreme levels.

The ‘death certificates’ bit seemed very strange to me, as the doctor certifying the death would have no idea about the cause of injuries. Doctors certify the medical cause of death. They don’t investigate collisions and attribute responsibility.
And again, we have no definition of culpability, so any figures quoted are utterly meaningless, without knowing what they refer to.

SeanW wrote: »

In case it was not obvious, I'm referring to rural countrysides that are regulated as "urban areas" because there happens to be a town or village a mile away. "Urban areas" that have one-off houses, green fields, cow pastures etc. that cause the definition of "urban area" to stretch credibility.

As to a cyclist talking about "make case by case definitions about which traffic rules they comply with?" that's a joke given the absolutely abominable way that Irish cyclists behave. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Your quibbles on the definition of ‘urban’ are entirely irrelevant. What is absolutely clear is that you have no difficulty with motorists (the ones who kill 2 or 3 people each week) making their own individual case-by-case decisions about whether they could be arsed to comply with speed limits or not (knowing that speeding is one of the top three causes of road deaths world-wide).
But a cyclist choosing to break a red light or to cycle on the path because they’ve been scared on the road is ‘menacing’? You’re dead right – you really couldn’t make it up. The sheer blinding hypocrisy is literally incredible.

SeanW wrote: »

So, to take this logic to its conclusion, why not just reduce all speed limits to 5kph?

Well, hopefully the collective drivers of Ireland could manage to stop killing people before we get all the way down to 5kph. Is there any chance of that?
Is there any chance that you’ll give some examples, maybe from Court reports or Coroner inquest reports of those ‘unavoidable’ deaths that make up the majority of road deaths. It’s strange how you’re so reluctant to back up your claim with any specifics there.

SeanW wrote: »

Obviously you've never heard of braking distances?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braking_distance

I’m open to persuasion, but he really didn’t seem to brake at all. He seemed to keep driving at the same speed, trying to steer around the cyclist. Surely the first reaction should be to jam on in a situation like that?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah curious that they never had to go a longer way to get the boat station if they lived/worked/socialized on the wrong side of town because of a new one way system, still I suppose they'll just rescue the people in trouble faster to make up for lost time!

Curious that they never had a traffic problem in Dun Laoghaire before the cycle lane came along, given the consistently busy levels of traffic there, frequently jammed up over summer weekends.

Ne'er a peep out of them apparently. That stretches credibility, doesn't it?

TaurenDruid wrote: »

Today's adventuring cyclists' observed: two muppets on the south quays approaching O'Connell Street. Well - I was legally approaching O'Connell Street. The cyclists - lycra clad, helmets, expensive looking racers, so not average commuters - are on the road, cycling towards Townsend Street. So, the wrong way down a one-way road. Seeing other cyclists heading towards them in the same lane - they hop up on the footpath and continue cycling. Towards more pedestrians!

Like, where does the entitlement end?

Two cyclists On the pavement? Shocking! Can you imagine the carnage if they hit a pedestrian at 15kph?

Meanwhile on the M9:
https://twitter.com/gardatraffic/status/1287106044913754112?s=21

meeeeh

shootermacg wrote: »

Plenty of flat earth types in here. You can bring a horse to water...but some horses simply refuse to drink because they took the wrong side in an argument and their pride simply will not let them back down.

So they double down, seemingly keeping their pride intact, all the while being laughed at by all and sundry.

So your intellectual superiority is such that it took decades, global pandemic and Greens in government for cycling infrastructure to start improving. Basically the attitude like yours is hated so much that just about anyone will be listened to before you and people like you.

It must be some uber smart tactic to win people on your side that nobody really understands.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Curious that they never had a traffic problem in Dun Laoghaire before the cycle lane came along, given the consistently busy levels of traffic there, frequently jammed up over summer weekends.

Ne'er a peep out of them apparently. That stretches credibility, doesn't it?

Do you think that possibly there wasn't a need for them to circumnavigate around a cycle lane that wasn't there or are you just intent on stretching the credibility of you not knowing what's taking place with regard to not being able to take the most direct route to a lifeboat station?

Hope you never need rescuing, those few minutes might save someones life!

Spook_ie wrote: »

Hope you never need rescuing, those few minutes might save someones life!

Agreed... we should ban all private cars from our roads... if it saves just one life it will be worth it right?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do you think that possibly there wasn't a need for them to circumnavigate around a cycle lane that wasn't there or are you just intent on stretching the credibility of you not knowing what's taking place with regard to not being able to take the most direct route to a lifeboat station?

Hope you never need rescuing, those few minutes might save someones life!

Do you think that they've never had a problem with traffic before the cycle lane existed? Never?

Maybe they should be getting bikes for their crews, or eBikes if they're a bit further away.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Agreed... we should ban all private cars from our roads... if it saves just one life it will be worth it right?

So instead of driving to the lifeboat station they can run/jog/cycle, trouble is you're likely serious about it!

Spook_ie wrote: »

So instead of driving to the lifeboat station they can run/jog/cycle, trouble is you're likely serious about it!

Eh no!....they drive...and as there are less cars on the road, they get their quicker? TBH I think they should be allowed to use blue lights, like Gardai.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think that they've never had a problem with traffic before the cycle lane existed? Never?

Maybe they should be getting bikes for their crews, or eBikes if they're a bit further away.

I don't think they had as many problems as they are having to contend with the traffic chaos caused now by the cycle lanes.

Maybe you'd like to volunteer going out on a leaky rowboat twice and we test the results see if cycling to the rescue station is better than driving, you never know you might survive both and be able to relate the experience here.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Eh no!....they drive...and as there are less cars on the road, they get their quicker? TBH I think they should be allowed to use blue lights, like Gardai.

But they're not are they (allowed to use blue lights), instead they have to drive like normal people and deal with the traffic and diversions now in place, something which AJR seems to think isn't affecting them even though the RNLI station manager is quoted as saying they are trying to find an 'amicable' solution.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Eh no!....they drive...and as there are less cars on the road, they get their quicker? TBH I think they should be allowed to use blue lights, like Gardai.

One thing I forgot in my previous rebuttal, if there are half the amount of cars and only half the amount of road space then there is no change to the traffic density, if anything due to the extended routes necessitated because of the cycle lanes it could well take much longer to get from AB as they now have to go AB via C