Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

micar · 01-08-2020 08:06AM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I wonder how many pedestrians did she pass within 1 metre of?

Somehow you are trying to justify the behaviour of the motorist over some you've no evidence of.

ebbsy wrote: »

She deserved it.

Did she? Why?

Both comments are completely idiotic.

Wonderful contribution.......wonderful

07Lapierre · 01-08-2020 01:59PM

ebbsy wrote: »

She deserved it.

Of course she did? (WTF??)

shootermacg · 01-08-2020 02:16PM

ebbsy wrote: »

She deserved it.

Inside the head of a psyco.

Duckjob · 01-08-2020 02:48PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I wonder how many pedestrians did she pass within 1 metre of?

ebbsy wrote: »

She deserved it.

f287aee611bf53c65117d98e2a18dc6b--ignored-quotes-ignorance-quotes.jpg

@micar - some minds just are too toxic to bother arguing with...

AndrewJRenko · 01-08-2020 06:24PM

micar wrote: »

Both comments are completely idiotic.

They're a lot more that idiotic, in fairness. As Duckjob says, they are toxic, at best. The depths to which some will sink to justify aggressive intimidation are fairly shocking. I can only assume they're the kind of people who's first reaction to a sexual assault is to blame the victim for having their skirt too short.

SeanW · 02-08-2020 01:54AM

Because cyclists are little angels, right?

On Friday the 24th, a number of people called in to Liveline (normally Joe Duffy's radio show, but there was a substitute presenter on that day) to discuss their experiences sharing the footpaths with two-wheeled lawbreakers playing zoom-zoom on the footpath. It rivaled anything any of the cyclists on here can claim about abuse by motorists.

https://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/podcasts/
(Look up Friday the 24th of July, Cycling)

Unfortunately much of the podcast is blank (maybe the person who controls the podcasts is a cyclist) :pac: so there's only about 10 minutes of the segment and you have to skip to 20 minutes and 13 seconds roughly. Old people terrified to leave their homes in case they get knocked down on the footpath (a real concern in some areas it seems). Cyclists abusing pedestrians and threatening to f*** people into the river. And (this will be familiar to posters and readers here) the first caller whose call is recorded in full notes that "it's never the cyclists fault, it's always someone else that is the problem" :rolleyes:

Charles Babbage · 02-08-2020 02:14AM

micar wrote: »

Somehow you are trying to justify the behaviour of the motorist over some you've no evidence of.

Both comments are completely idiotic.

I am in no way trying to justify the motorist, who is obviously a prat.

We see ads on TV about leaving 1 metre, which I very much agree with. But cyclists then do not leave one metre between themselves and pedestrians, the most vulnerable class of road user.

micar · 02-08-2020 08:01AM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I am in no way trying to justify the motorist, who is obviously a prat.

We see ads on TV about leaving 1 metre, which I very much agree with. But cyclists then do not leave one metre between themselves and pedestrians, the most vulnerable class of road user.

If not, what was the intention of your post?

Would you call him a "delinquent" or is that something you only reserve of cyclists?

There is a difference in passing a pedestrian at 15km per hour on a bike and passing a cyclist at 50km to 100km p/h.

You cannot compare both. If someone is cycling on the footpath at 25km p/h passing pedestrians without due care and attention, the bike needs to be taken off them and crushed.

It strange that you never see an ad on TV asking cyclists to behave better. The ads focus on motorists

1) speeding
2) drink driving
3) drug driving
4) to give pedestrians and cyclists extra space
5) texting or on the phone

May be you and your posse should get together and get onto the RSA and ask them to do an ad campaign about "menacing intimidating cyclists terrorising the country"

micar · 02-08-2020 09:04AM

SeanW wrote: »

Because cyclists are little angels, right?

On Friday the 24th, a number of people called in to Liveline (normally Joe Duffy's radio show, but there was a substitute presenter on that day) to discuss their experiences sharing the footpaths with two-wheeled lawbreakers playing zoom-zoom on the footpath. It rivaled anything any of the cyclists on here can claim about abuse by motorists.

https://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/podcasts/
(Look up Friday the 24th of July, Cycling)

Unfortunately much of the podcast is blank (maybe the person who controls the podcasts is a cyclist) :pac: so there's only about 10 minutes of the segment and you have to skip to 20 minutes and 13 seconds roughly. Old people terrified to leave their homes in case they get knocked down on the footpath (a real concern in some areas it seems). Cyclists abusing pedestrians and threatening to f*** people into the river. And (this will be familiar to posters and readers here) the first caller whose call is recorded in full notes that "it's never the cyclists fault, it's always someone else that is the problem" :rolleyes:

Get onto RTE about your conspiracy about the shortened podcast.......that's some leap you made.

That's some segment in fairness

Illegal to cycle on footpsths......it's not enforced.

Wish AGS would tell them that. If it was all the little 5 year olds would be fined and brought before the courts.

bikes having licence numbers ......... which will never happen

elderly having to jump out of cyclists way.......FFS.....cyclists just don't appear out of nowhere.

Profile of cyclist being male/female/young and old.......i seriously doubt it.

footpaths being taken over by cyclists where it would be better for them to walk on the road ....... ah here

To elderly people "probably" being seriously injured........

To the woman who is afraid to go outside because of cyclists and claims lots of mothers friends have been knocked down........ah here

Nobody likes to be criticised and will try to defend themselves. ......human nature....not just cyclists.

Joe Duffy........the nation's favourite moan.......exaggerate exaggerate exaggerate

I've seen groups of young lads cycling through phibsboro doing wheelies going all over the road.......complete idiots but I slowed down in my car and made sure I wasn't going anyway near them.

Young lads like that have no acceptance of personal responsibility. They will do what ever the fu€k they want.

It's the same as all the young people having house parties during Covid. They don't understand the impact that can have on other people .

As father stack says "i've had my fun and that's all that matters"

magicbastarder · 02-08-2020 09:20AM

micar wrote: »

From it being illegal to cycle on footpsths.......which it isn't

I'll say that again as you referred to it.......It is not illegal to cycle on the footpath.

It is illegal to cycle on a footpath.
Dunno where you're getting the idea that it's not.

micar · 02-08-2020 09:46AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

It is illegal to cycle on a footpath.
Dunno where you're getting the idea that it's not.

You are correct

I subsequently correct my post

It is illegal but not enforced.

Apologies

Duckjob · 02-08-2020 10:09AM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I wonder how many pedestrians did she pass within 1 metre of?

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I am in no way trying to justify the motorist, who is obviously a prat.

Funny, that bit about him being a prat wasn't screaming out of your first post, wasn't even whispering out TBF.

Charles Babbage wrote: »

We see ads on TV about leaving 1 metre, which I very much agree with. But cyclists then do not leave one metre between themselves and pedestrians, the most vulnerable class of road user.

SeanW wrote: »

Because cyclists are little angels, right?
Because cyclists are little angels, right?

On Friday the 24th, a number of people called in to Liveline (normally Joe Duffy's radio show, but there was a substitute presenter on that day) to discuss their experiences sharing the footpaths with two-wheeled lawbreakers playing zoom-zoom on the footpath. It rivaled anything any of the cyclists on here can claim about abuse by motorists.

https://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/podcasts/
(Look up Friday the 24th of July, Cycling)

Unfortunately much of the podcast is blank (maybe the person who controls the podcasts is a cyclist) :pac: so there's only about 10 minutes of the segment and you have to skip to 20 minutes and 13 seconds roughly. Old people terrified to leave their homes in case they get knocked down on the footpath (a real concern in some areas it seems)..Old people terrified to leave their homes in case they get knocked down on the footpath (a real concern in some areas it seems)..
Cyclists abusing pedestrians and threatening to f*** people into the river.
Cyclists abusing pedestrians and threatening to f*** people into the river.
Cyclists abusing pedestrians and threatening to f*** people into the river.

And (this will be familiar to posters and readers here) the first caller whose call is recorded in full notes that "it's never the cyclists fault, it's always someone else that is the problem" :rolleyes:
And (this will be familiar to posters and readers here) the first caller whose call is recorded in full notes that "it's never the cyclists fault, it's always someone else that is the problem" :rolleyes:

Strawman
Generalisation
WhatAbout

SeanW, your post was a particular head-scratcher, because many parts of it fitted nicely into different categories and I couldnt decide which category was most deserving of the color, so, and I hope you dont mind but I just repeated those parts for all the relevant categories.

When you're afraid to argue the specifics of a specific case, just keep digging back into those nice safe generalisations, strawman arguments and what abouts...

As I said, toxic mindsets....

Spook_ie · 02-08-2020 12:56PM

micar wrote: »

<Snipped>

It strange that you never see an ad on TV asking cyclists to behave better. The ads focus on motorists

1) speeding
2) drink driving
3) drug driving
4) to give pedestrians and cyclists extra space
5) texting or on the phone

May be you and your posse should get together and get onto the RSA and ask them to do an ad campaign about "menacing intimidating cyclists terrorising the country"

Perhaps the RSA etc. are missing a trick there, should cyclists be expected to conform to general traffic laws such as those listed? 2,3 and 5 would (to me ) seem like no brainers but what of 1 and 4.

Studies of Strava and segments on 30kph roads such as O'Connell Street would seem to show that the 30kph motorised speed limit is regularly exceeded by cyclists.

micar · 02-08-2020 01:26PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Perhaps the RSA etc. are missing a trick there, should cyclists be expected to conform to general traffic laws such as those listed? 2,3 and 5 would (to me ) seem like no brainers but what of 1 and 4.

Studies of Strava and segments on 30kph roads such as O'Connell Street would seem to show that the 30kph motorised speed limit is regularly exceeded by cyclists.

Go off and ask the RSA why they aren't tackling any of these in relation to cycling.

Spook_ie · 02-08-2020 01:48PM

micar wrote: »

Go off and ask the RSA why they aren't tackling any of these in relation to cycling.

I'd far more like to get the cyclists responses so I can include them in any correspondence with the RSA and Transport Minister

Duckjob · 02-08-2020 02:01PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Perhaps the RSA etc. are missing a trick there, should cyclists be expected to conform to general traffic laws such as those listed? 2,3 and 5 would (to me ) seem like no brainers but what of 1 and 4.

Studies of Strava and segments on 30kph roads such as O'Connell Street would seem to show that the 30kph motorised speed limit is regularly exceeded by cyclists.

It's Groundhog Day!

Already covered over on the 30kph Limits thread here in C&T where you nitpicked your way around a similar topic and then ran away from the discussion when it was pointed out to you that using the calculator you mentioned, a cyclist colliding while travelling at 50kph (which in Dublin City is virtually no-one) still has less than 10% of the impact of a 1.5 tonne vehicle at 30kph, and a cyclist colliding at 30kph (which is still a speed beyond 90% of people cycling), has just over 5% of the impact of a 1.5 tonne motor vehicle doing the same.

In other words, going on about cyclists exceeding 30kph as a safety issue is ridculously petty, unless you're advocating limiting car speeds down to about 1.7kph, which yields equivalent impact to the same person doing 30kph on a 10kg bike.

Pinch Flat · 02-08-2020 02:04PM

Love the way the toxic motorist mindset tries to equate a 30kph plus car and a 30kph plus bike. I'd love to see the reply back from the minister though. Be worth a laugh.

magicbastarder · 02-08-2020 02:08PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Studies of Strava

i.e. 'i looked at strava'

Spook_ie wrote: »

segments on 30kph roads such as O'Connell Street would seem to show that the 30kph motorised speed limit is regularly exceeded by cyclists.

there are 250 people who have exceeded 30km/h average from parnell street to the bridge. 12 have exceeded 40km/h. some of the records are over 11 years old.

or else; in over 11 years of existence, strava has recorded 53 cyclists who have managed to exceed 35km/h average on that segment, out of the near 3,000 cyclists who have attempted it. and that's their PRs, not a record of what they'd usually do it at.

whatever ham fisted point you're trying to prove, the strava data would appear to undermine your point, rather than support it.

02-08-2020 02:09PM

What’s with so many of them using the motorway these days? The new bit past Enniscorthy etc is terrible for it.

AndrewJRenko · 02-08-2020 02:09PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

But cyclists then do not leave one metre between themselves and pedestrians, the most vulnerable class of road user.

Maybe that's because cyclists aren't killing 30-40 pedestrians each year?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Perhaps the RSA etc. are missing a trick there, should cyclists be expected to conform to general traffic laws such as those listed? 2,3 and 5 would (to me ) seem like no brainers but what of 1 and 4.

Studies of Strava and segments on 30kph roads such as O'Connell Street would seem to show that the 30kph motorised speed limit is regularly exceeded by cyclists.

Again, what problem are you trying to solve here? I sometimes get over 30 kmph, mostly on downhills. I can't imagine that I'd get over 30 kmph on O'Connell St, unless maybe I got a clear run all the way down from Parnell Square - but either way, what's the issue?

Of all the problems we have on our roads, where do cyclists over 30 kmph rank as an issue to be addressed?

Spook_ie · 02-08-2020 02:15PM

Duckjob wrote: »

It's Groundhog Day!

Already covered over on the 30kph Limits thread here in C&T where you nitpicked your way around a similar topic and then ran away from the discussion when it was pointed out to you that using the calculator you mentioned, a cyclist colliding while travelling at 50kph (which in Dublin City is virtually no-one) still has less than 10% of the impact of a 1.5 tonne vehicle at 30kph, and a cyclist colliding at 30kph (which is still a speed beyond 90% of people cycling), has just over 5% of the impact of a 1.5 tonne motor vehicle doing the same.

In other words, going on about cyclists exceeding 30kph as a safety issue is ridculously petty, unless you're advocating limiting car speeds down to about 1.7kph, which yields equivalent impact to the same person doing 30kph on a 10kg bike.

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Love the way the toxic motorist mindset tries to equate a 30kph plus car and a 30kph plus bike. I'd love to see the reply back from the minister though. Be worth a laugh.

Not groundhog day at all, you listed 5 specifics, I'm asking you about them but typical avoidance tactic of picking on 1 item and ignoring the rest.

But if you insist on pushing the speed limit item to the front.

Do you think that motorists in control of a 2+ tonne killing machine should have to contend with the added distraction of being overtaken on either side by cyclists exceeding the motorised speed limit.

O'Connell Street has numerous cyclists that according to Strava exceed 40kph , so one would assume that far more of them manage to exceed 30kph.

Duckjob · 02-08-2020 02:24PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not groundhog day at all, you listed 5 specifics, I'm asking you about them but typical avoidance tactic of picking on 1 item and ignoring the rest.

But if you insist on pushing the speed limit item to the front.

Do you think that motorists in control of a 2+ tonne killing machine should have to contend with the added distraction of being overtaken on either side by cyclists exceeding the motorised speed limit.

O'Connell Street has numerous cyclists that according to Strava exceed 40kph , so one would assume that far more of them manage to exceed 30kph.

I didn't mention the other point 4 (you highlighted 1 and 4) because to me there's no argument that you should give decent space to pedestrians. It's a no brainer, as are the other points on the list.

That was Micar's list, not mine, but you responded to his post with a post which was all about cyclist speed, which, in case you didn't notice you're still chunnering on about

) . It was pointed out to you in some detail on the other thread that your physics was arseways at which point you ran away only to try to repeat the same nonsense argument here.

magicbastarder · 02-08-2020 02:27PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Do you think that motorists in control of a 2+ tonne killing machine should have to contend with the added distraction of being overtaken on either side by cyclists exceeding the motorised speed limit.

i know this wasn't aimed at me, but i'm happy to answer it with a resounding yes.
if a motorist is distracted enough by a cyclist moving 5km/h faster than them, for it to be a genuine issue, i know of several garages they can bring their cars to, to sell them, because they should not be left with those cars.
i regularly overtake motorists on the left and on the right in slow moving traffic, this is something motorists have to be able to contend with anyway and if it's that much of an issue, they are incompetent to the point of serious danger.

magicbastarder · 02-08-2020 02:27PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

O'Connell Street has numerous cyclists that according to Strava exceed 40kph , so one would assume that far more of them manage to exceed 30kph.

which segment?

07Lapierre · 02-08-2020 02:28PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not groundhog day at all, you listed 5 specifics, I'm asking you about them but typical avoidance tactic of picking on 1 item and ignoring the rest.

But if you insist on pushing the speed limit item to the front.

Do you think that motorists in control of a 2+ tonne killing machine should have to contend with the added distraction of being overtaken on either side by cyclists exceeding the motorised speed limit.

O'Connell Street has numerous cyclists that according to Strava exceed 40kph , so one would assume that far more of them manage to exceed 30kph.

One would assume motorists would drive with due care and attention?
One would assume that any motorists that has cyclists overtakeing them on both sides at the same time is clearly driving too slow?

Spook_ie · 02-08-2020 02:30PM

Duckjob wrote: »

It's Groundhog Day!

Already covered over on the 30kph Limits thread here in C&T where you nitpicked your way around a similar topic and then ran away from the discussion when it was pointed out to you that using the calculator you mentioned, a cyclist colliding while travelling at 50kph (which in Dublin City is virtually no-one) still has less than 10% of the impact of a 1.5 tonne vehicle at 30kph, and a cyclist colliding at 30kph (which is still a speed beyond 90% of people cycling), has just over 5% of the impact of a 1.5 tonne motor vehicle doing the same.

In other words, going on about cyclists exceeding 30kph as a safety issue is ridculously petty, unless you're advocating limiting car speeds down to about 1.7kph, which yields equivalent impact to the same person doing 30kph on a 10kg bike.

Duckjob wrote: »

I didn't mention the other point 4 (you highlighted 1 and 4) because to me there's no argument that you should give decent space to pedestrians. It's a no brainer, as are the other points on the list.

That was Micar's list, not mine, but you responded to his post with a post which was all about cyclist speed, which, in case you didn't notice you're still chunnering on about ) . It was pointed out to you in some detail on the other thread that your physics was arseways at which point you run away only to try to repeat the same nonsense argument here.

I would have thought you'd know by now I never run away from arguments, and as to the argument on the 30kph thread it was nothing to do with the speed limits, it was to do with the usual cyclists missing out vital pieces of information, such as being in collisions with a 10-20kg cycle rather than a 60-100kg cycle and rider.

Which would you prefer to be hit by the magical 10-20kg cycle or the (reality of ) 60-100 kg cycle and rider

Spook_ie · 02-08-2020 02:32PM

07Lapierre wrote: »

One would assume motorists would drive with due care and attention?
One would assume that any motorists that has cyclists overtakeing them on both sides at the same time is clearly driving too slow?

Or maybe driving within the posted speed limit!

kenmm · 02-08-2020 02:33PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

But cyclists then do not leave one metre between themselves and pedestrians, the most vulnerable class of road user.

What are you on about?

What has your vague generalisation got in comparison to the specific incident above?

magicbastarder · 02-08-2020 02:36PM

i think it's a very general 'if motoring specific laws are not applied to cyclists too, then i am being oppressed' reaction.

kenmm · 02-08-2020 02:40PM

SeanW wrote: »

Because cyclists are little angels, right?

On Friday the 24th, a number of people called in to Liveline (normally Joe Duffy's radio show, but there was a substitute presenter on that day) to discuss their experiences sharing the footpaths with two-wheeled lawbreakers playing zoom-zoom on the footpath. It rivaled anything any of the cyclists on here can claim about abuse by motorists.

https://www.rte.ie/radio1/liveline/podcasts/
(Look up Friday the 24th of July, Cycling)

Unfortunately much of the podcast is blank (maybe the person who controls the podcasts is a cyclist) :pac: so there's only about 10 minutes of the segment and you have to skip to 20 minutes and 13 seconds roughly. Old people terrified to leave their homes in case they get knocked down on the footpath (a real concern in some areas it seems). Cyclists abusing pedestrians and threatening to f*** people into the river. And (this will be familiar to posters and readers here) the first caller whose call is recorded in full notes that "it's never the cyclists fault, it's always someone else that is the problem" :rolleyes:

There is a specific liveline thread - It might be better suited to discuss sensationalist "journalism" there?

I am sure if I had a radio show and I wanted to whip up a frenzy on any topic, I could find a few people to have similar arguments.

You could practicality replace cyclist/pedestrian with any pair of activities/ social segmentation and get results.

Dog walkers/ non dog walkers
People with kids/ people without
Joggers/ pedestrians
Motorcyclists
Teenagers
etc
etc

Btw I am not defending "Cyclists" - why? Because I can't.. no one can - because they are not one group of people that all act the same - there are (unts and non (unts in every group.

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Comments