07Lapierre wrote: » Then all RNLI crew should live in the boathouse. After all, if it saves just one life right?
Thargor wrote: » 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...
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 relatively few people being killed dying, due to various causes on the road, make sure that you don't attribute any responsibility to drivers those who may not be responsible 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) because we don't always know the cause of every single collision and the causes vary wildly.
Spook_ie wrote: » Sure why not, they're only volunteers anyway, so fvck 'em Your attitude to what equates to the 4th emergency service does you no favors at all.
SeanW wrote: » I won't hesitate to condemn a motorist who genuinely takes the piss, in no uncertain terms.
SeanW wrote: » the absolute worst I've encountered from Irish motorists is that they can sometimes be inconsiderate.
SeanW wrote: » There are degrees. Say for example, you're a pedestrian that at times has to jump out of the way of lawbreakers on two wheels (like me) or regularly gets hit by them (like another poster here).
magicbastarder wrote: » but you said, in different thread: *the* *absolute* *worst* that is a properly astonishing statement, if you wish us to take it seriously. or else you were taking the piss, in which case i'm not sure what to make of any of your statements.
if you've never seen anything above the level of 'inconsiderate' from an irish motorist, i suspect you've never been a passenger in a car, let alone a driver. i drove from the ballymun junction on the M50 the other day to the sandyford exit, and in that one trip, i saw three comprehensively dangerous stunts, one which could have caused a full blown pileup (someone swerving with a trailer full of cavity blocks where the trailer tilted dangerously, such was the swerve). that was one dangerous incident every 10km, roughly. you *do* drive, do you?
SeanW wrote: » I was thinking in the context of my experience as a routine pedestrian in Ireland's major cities. the absolute worst I've ever seen in that context is two things: Motorists being cheeky and going through a red light that's just turned red. This is an inconvenience because it means I sometimes have to wait 2 seconds at a green man crossing. Motorists and bus drivers blocking specific pedestrian crossings at peak times due in part to traffic being backed up. I referred above to the junction I've had problems at. Sometimes you get the green man but then you and 20 other pedestrians have to shimmy between the bumpers of stationary cars, other times a bus will be blocking the crossing so comprehensively that you can't even see the green man on the opposite traffic light post. In the latter case, I really wish the guards or DCC would send out a traffic warden out to that junction in particular (and any others where this happens) to tell these drivers to cop the f*** on, maybe hand out a few fines, but that's by far the worst I've seen (as a pedestrian) from Irish motorists. And most importantly, none of the above has anything to do with speed. 30kph or 50kph makes no difference when you're having to shimmy between the bumpers of two cars that are stationary, or find a way around a bus that's stationary half each side of the crossing, all within the 30 seconds or so that you have a green or yellow man to cross. So far as I am concerned, motorists can do (within reason) whatever speed they like as long as they obey traffic controls, stay off the footpath and keep pedestrian crossings clear. Yes, though mostly off-peak. Come to think of it, I have seen crazy stuff as a motorist, but most not very memorable and it did not come to mind when discussing my experience as a pedestrian.
07Lapierre wrote: » Don't be stupid! You need to learn to recognise sarcasm when you see it. Your twisted logic that one way systems and cycle lanes are worse than streets clogged with cars doesn't do you any favours either.
Spook_ie wrote: » 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.
Spook_ie wrote: » 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.
meeeeh wrote: » 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.
SeanW wrote: » There are degrees. Say for example, you're a pedestrian that at times has to jump out of the way of lawbreakers on two wheels (like me) or regularly gets hit by them (like another poster here). Which should one be more concerned about: Two wheeled lawbreakers who regularly menace and hit pedestrians in core urban centres? A motorists who sails past a 60kph speed sign at 65kph (or even 55kph past a 50kph sign) in the middle of nowhere, in an "urban area" where they're surrounded by green fields and the odd one-off house. (That's all that's necessary to become part of Andy's 98%).
SeanW wrote: » I won't hesitate to condemn a motorist who genuinely takes the piss, in no uncertain terms. Too bad cyclists can do the same for the lawbreaking scum in their ranks that regularly menace and hit pedestrians and can only respond with "but, but, but, whatabout" Well, I'm assuming the driver didn't set out to cause a collision so we can assume this was an accident. Beyond that however, at the time the article was written, little else was known. Was it: Did the driver cause the collision due to their own actions, e.g. fiddling with their mobile phone and losing focus? Did the vehicle have some defect? If so, was that defect known? Should it have been? Was the driver and the owner of the truck the same person? Did the driver encounter some unexpected event that induced them to turn quickly? Did the driver suffer some unexplained/unexplainable occurance that caused them to lose control and which could not have been foreseen? Something like an unexplained understeer of oversteer? (I know that this can happen). Did the truck driver crash on purpose (in which case, it was not an accident). In the absence of causal information, neutral terminology makes sense.
SeanW wrote: » I'm not sure who said hit-and-runs were "exceedingly rare" but I said that in the case of a fatal accident, it's normal for the responsible party to be determined (i.e. that when the driver is responsible they don't usually hit and run). At least that's what the RSA found in its study of pedestrian fatalities. Clearly they do happen. And I think I can speak for 99% of fellow motorists when I say, I hope whoever did this is caught, and punished. Hard.
SeanW wrote: » FYP.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Let’s be clear about what’s happening here. This is nothing to do with the effectiveness of the RNLI service. When RNLI staff were getting caught in the chaotic traffic in Dun Laoghaire for years, there wasn’t a peep of concern coming out from you or others, who suddenly, when a short cycle lane is built, have huge concerns about the abilities of the RNLI volunteers to travel, but not concerned enough to consider alternative ways of making the same journey faster. This is jumping on a bandwagon to take a swipe at cycling in general, or provision of dedicated cycling facilities in particular. What exactly are the RNLI trying to find an amicable solution to? Interesting how Seanie can go on about ‘menacing lawbreaking scum’ without any tone policing from yourself, but it is cyclists’ attitude that is ‘hated so much ‘apparently.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Let’s be clear about what’s happening here. This is nothing to do with the effectiveness of the RNLI service. When RNLI staff were getting caught in the chaotic traffic in Dun Laoghaire for years, there wasn’t a peep of concern coming out from you or others, who suddenly, when a short cycle lane is built, have huge concerns about the abilities of the RNLI volunteers to travel, but not concerned enough to consider alternative ways of making the same journey faster.
Interesting how Seanie can go on about ‘menacing lawbreaking scum’ without any tone policing from yourself, but it is cyclists’ attitude that is ‘hated so much ‘apparently.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Any quick review of any set of KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) data will answer that question for you very clearly. One should be more concerned about the motorists who kill 2 or 3 people each week on the road than the cyclists who kill one person each decade.
in a collision that resulted in one death and other injuries is just an accident. Seriously, what’s the back story?
It’s quite Trumpian in nature, so far detached from the actual reality of what happens on the roads.
And btw ‘accident’ is the complete opposite of neutral terminology.
Aw gee, that’s just so reassuring, that you sit around waiting for fatal collisions to occur and then you want to punish the driver – but any preventative measure aimed at stopping these collisions happening, such as additional testing or additional enforcement is resisted by you as an outrageous imposition on the super-amazing drivers of Ireland.
The major causes of road deaths are well known in Ireland and around the world. They are speeding, failure to wear seat belts, drink driving and fatigue driving. There’s no mysteries here – just generally crap driving.
shootermacg wrote: » Roy Rogers would say you're Triggered
meeeeh wrote: » And I would say that only morons use term triggered. Weather that applies only to Roy Rogers or also yourself is up to you to decide.
Spook_ie wrote: » I don't know what the problem they are looking to find an amicable solution to, but would it be stretching coincidence too far to make the assumption that it's something to do with access, you know they say there's no smoke without fire, so perhaps put you cynical views to one side and consider that if a life boat station manager views they have a problem then they probably do have a problem and that problem is linked to DLR County Council and that as it's a new problem it might not have been as much of a problem as previous.
Spook_ie wrote: » Why would I worry about Sean's tone, it's you I have a problem with, with your silliness about twisting what I say to something you'd like to think i said
AndrewJRenko wrote: » He didn't actually say they had a problem. He said they were working towards an amicable solution - slightly different. And who knows what the solution was about the short wands (stubbies) that were temporarily installed while the farmer's market was moved to Queens Road - nothing to do with the cycle lane. I'm sure the RNLI are capable of working things out with the Council either way. But again, fascinating to see how many people jumped on the bandwagon of RNLI and emergency service needs to take a swipe at cyclists, though they never expressed a gram of concern about how heavy traffic has plagued Dun Laoghaire for decades. That was directed at the quoted poster, not at you.
Spook_ie wrote: » Ah that ever elusive amicable solution to a non existent problem ( according to the AJR Bible of word play) Re Stubbies so now you suddenly do know what might be the problem, some infrastructure put in to facilitate a cycle lane, some infrastructure that the RNLI volunteer members aren't legally allowed to drive over, maybe. And isn't it FASCINATING that the Boat Station manager is the one looking for an amicable solution, a solution that he WASN'T looking for last year. Does that not suggest to even the most stubborn on here, that despite your allegations of heavy traffic causing them problems over the years that the situation is (somehow) different this year
Spook_ie wrote: » And as I've said before, keep your replies separate for separate posters, makes it easier for all to follow your incoherent thought processes.
SeanW wrote: » So the RNLI people are lying?
SeanW wrote: » If motorists drove their cars the way Irish cyclists cycle, you can be sure I'd have some harsh words for them.
SeanW wrote: » Leaving aside your gross oversimplification, you're saying it's OK for cyclists to hit pedestrians and force pedestrians to get out of their way on footpaths and at red lights? As long as they don't kill people, everything else is OK?
SeanW wrote: » In the story of the cattle truck driver, the only person hurt was the truck driver, and we don't know the cause of the collision. But we can be reasonably confident it was accidental. So yes, in the absence of evidence of intent, we can assume that it was, in fact, an accident..
SeanW wrote: » I suppose it beats going to the Alexandria Occasional-Cortex school of statistics.https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/06/ocasio-cortez_people_being_more_concerned_about_me_being_factually_correct_than_morally_right.html It's more important to be morally correct that factual or accurate, eh? Who cares if every statement is either a lie or a gross oversimplification, just don't deviate from the dogma.
SeanW wrote: » Do you need money to buy a dictionary or something? Are you unable to access online dictionaries for some reason? https://www.dictionary.com/browse/accident?s=t
SeanW wrote: » Well, punishing millions of people for the actions of a small number of hit-and-run scumbags seems a little ... psychotic. Most sane people prefer to punish those who are actually guilty.
SeanW wrote: » You left out the part about collisions that drivers are involved in that they did not cause. E.g. pedestrians lying down in the road, other road users making maneuvers without looking, etc, etc, etc. But hey, like AOC, it's more important to be morally right than factual or accurate, eh?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Yes, I did leave that out, because those events are few and far between. Yes, they do happen - but as noted above, most road deaths are drivers killing themselves, other drivers or passengers - so you're going to find it fairly difficult to spin the blame on to cyclists or pedestrians for those ones.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I didn't say non-existent problem, though it's interesting yet again how far you have to twist my words to find something to argue with. And you seem to have missed the point about the stubbies, which were put in for the farmers market, not the cycle lane, as I mentioned above. And again, it is fascinating to see your assumptions about what the RNLI manager was doing last year? Have you had a good chat with him about this, or have you just jumped to conclusions based on one line of one article which mentions nothing about last year at all? All this article shows is that (surprise, surprise) some people get very uppity when facilities are provided for cyclists. But anyone who's spent any time on this thread would already know that. It seems to be just yourself that has a problem with this, so I can only suggest that you 1) Try reading the full post before responding, or 2) Take it up with the moderators and stop your back seat moderating.
Access from Queen's Road 'is the primary access route used by volunteer lifeboat crew in the provision of its 24/7 lifesaving service and it is restricted as a result' Mr Wynne says.
DLRCC as a local authority and a road authority has a duty of care to all road users, particularly vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians, and the mobility interventions, including the provision of a 2-way segregated cycle way, have necessitated changes to the road layout along Queen’s Road and in the Harbour area. In order to avoid a conflict between cyclists on the 2-way cycle way and vehicles, it was deemed necessary from a safety perspective to prevent access to vehicles via the access point in the Harbour closest to the East Pier. However, there are still clear vehicle access routes through to the RNLI lifeboat station in the Harbour via the Marine Road/Crofton Road junction and at York Road/Crofton Road junction, via the Cold Quay Bridge.
The dlr CoCo Markets was located on a trial basis on Queens Road on 12th July but this will not continue and the Market will be relocated to nearby locations which means that Queens Road will be open to vehicular traffic under the new one-way system during the week and at weekends.
Spook_ie wrote: » Luckily it seems that DLR coco have decided that the experiment of having the farmers market on Queens Rd as well has been done away with.
meeeeh wrote: » So drivers are killing people but you object to use of word accident because it is not neutral. Oh the irony...
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So nothing to do with the cycle facilities then. That's what I thought. It is factually correct to say that drivers are killing people. It is not factually correct to say that any collision is accidental until you have completed a full investigation. It is an assumption.
[DLRCC as a local authority and a road authority has a duty of care to all road users, particularly vulnerable road users such as cyclists and pedestrians, and the mobility interventions, including the provision of a 2-way segregated cycle way, have necessitated changes to the road layout along Queen’s Road and in the Harbour area. In order to avoid a conflict between cyclists on the 2-way cycle way and vehicles, it was deemed necessary from a safety perspective to prevent access to vehicles via the access point in the Harbour closest to the East Pier.
Spook_ie wrote: » The stubbies were put in to prevent entry exit via the entryway adjacent to the Lifeboat station Luckily it seems that DLR coco have decided that the experiment of having the farmers market on Queens Rd as well has been done away with.
SeanW wrote: » I suppose it beats going to the Alexandria Occasional-Cortex school of statistics.
