nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Rogerrabit

Hi cycling in footpaths is very dangerous for pedestrians especially now with this virus pandemic. Every day I witness these events cyclists on the footpaths spewing out germs as they cycle past pedestrians less than two feet from them. If any of these cyclists have the virus the pedestrians have no chance they will pick up the disease. Why do the police allow this carry on. They should be protecting the elderly instead of turning a blind eye to this outrageous carryon. What do yo think out there in Ireland the country whose population do not know how to wear a facemask.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Shai

partyguinness wrote: »

The way I see it if a cyclist shows such a cavalier attitude toward there own welfare then they are not likely to think about anyone else.

You're absolutely right. Before the COVID bike lane changes in the Phoenix Park, I was cycling there in the evening and ended up hitting an old man walking on the cycle lane. You know how it used to be in the Park right - pedestrians on cycle lanes everywhere. Anyway, guy fell over and hit his head something fierce. I stopped and gave him a damn good kicking. He deserved it though. Guy wasn't wearing a helmet, couldn't even be arsed to care about his own welfare.

Of course none of the above actually happened, cause I'm not a goddamn psycho like yourself.

Thelonious Monk

partyguinness wrote: »

The way I see it if a cyclist shows such a cavalier attitude toward there own welfare then they are not likely to think about anyone else.

Why would they be thinking about anyone else? They don't harm other people, show me the evidence.

partyguinness

Shai wrote: »

You're absolutely right. Before the COVID bike lane changes in the Phoenix Park, I was cycling there in the evening and ended up hitting an old man walking on the cycle lane. You know how it used to be in the Park right - pedestrians on cycle lanes everywhere. Anyway, guy fell over and hit his head something fierce. I stopped and gave him a damn good kicking. He deserved it though. Guy wasn't wearing a helmet, couldn't even be arsed to care about his own welfare.

Of course none of the above actually happened, cause I'm not a goddamn psycho like yourself.

I am failing to see the analogy between a cyclist illegally and dangerous cycling on a footpath and some made up story about an old guy in the Phoenix Park not wearing a helmet out walking and straying into a cycle path.

Sooooo....what was the point of your post? No, in fact don't bother.

partyguinness

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Why would they be thinking about anyone else?

Why would a cyclist not be thinking about their surroundings and other road users? Interesting.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

They don't harm other people, show me the evidence.

Oh now you want something akin to an international peer reviewed study showing you that a cyclist not properly kitted out, no helmet, earphones, obscured vision on a busy commuter road is just as safe as properly kitted out cyclist? Ah yes the last refuge of the Boardsie who cannot bring themselves to admit that perhaps that particular cyclist's behavour is less than ideal. What about a study in the school of basic cop on?

At the end of the day it's not my funeral or life changing injury.

In an ideal world we could all cycle to work.

I put this question out there already but nobody has answered it...would you regard that particular cyclist's behaviour as text book and approved practice? (large ruck sack over back of head, ear phones, no helmet, work clothes) Is that how you cycle every day on busy roads?

While I am at it, does everyone agree that that cycling down a footpath against walkers at night with no lights etc and at speed is again perfectly acceptable behaviour?

Shai

partyguinness wrote: »

I am failing to see the analogy between a cyclist illegally and dangerous cycling on a footpath and some made up story about an old guy in the Phoenix Park not wearing a helmet out walking and straying into a cycle path.

Sooooo....what was the point of your post? No, in fact don't bother.

Of course you don't. You live in a world where when a cyclist gets in an accident, wasn't wearing a helmet, and hurts their head, it's the cyclist's fault for not wearing a helmet. Strangely enough when we transpose that situation to an accident involving a pedestrian and a cyclist, that shrivelled part of your brain that represents empathy manages to activate itself. How strange.

I threw in the assault bit as you seem to be a fan of the ol' ultraviolence. Good to see your brain at least managed to process this particular instance of violence as abhorrent.

Tea drinker

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

My understanding is that you don't enter a yellow box if that blocks traffic that would otherwise be free to proceed. Sounds he entered the yellow box and blocked the cyclist.

You can enter to turn right and yield to traffic, provided box and exit is clear (it was )
Traffic in the adjacent lane was already stopped allowing entry to the box, but whilst the driver was waiting for traffic to allow the turn, the cyclist arrived and just strolled his bike ever so slowly into the car. For me it's anti social behaviour from ignorance, not ignorance for rules of the road, just ignorant.

I've drove that road for years in the mornings, it's quite dangerous at the pedestrian lights beside the junction I mentioned above. I have seen several cyclists being attended to by emergency services in that 50 metre stretch. No idea who was at fault in any instance, but it's dangerous at peak times.
(just to add I think it has improved with improved road markings in past few years, and lowering the speed limits, am guessing motorists/cyclists are more aware on the road too)

breezy1985 wrote: »

So you had to do an emergency stop for a bike that wasnt in your lane but the truck kept moving and would have hit the cyclist if you didnt stop. If the cyclist had time to pull out stop and start again to change lane into your lane then the truck wasnt really that close to him at all was he.

The whole physics of your story is BS

The truck missed him by inches, going full speed having never touched the brakes. It's OK you don't understand, and tbh you won't understand because the cyclist was initially at fault. Yes one million % the Garbage driver should have seen him and braked, even if the cyclist was in the wrong he doesn't deserve to be hurt and an accident investigation would have found against the driver.

partyguinness

Shai wrote: »

Of course you don't. You live in a world where when a cyclist gets in an accident, wasn't wearing a helmet, and hurts their head, it's the cyclist's fault for not wearing a helmet. Strangely enough when we transpose that situation to an accident involving a pedestrian and a cyclist, that shrivelled part of your brain that represents empathy manages to activate itself. How strange.

You are completely and utterly mangling two separate and distinct issues.This is not about an accident or fault. The helmet issue comes after the fact.

My point is: given the dramatically increased risk of death or severe injury that a cyclist is exposed to on a busy road, why would a cyclist not wear a helmet even as a token gesture? Throw in ear phones are everything else I have detailed it is just lunacy IMO.

How an accident may come to pass (self inflicted or otherwise) is completely irrelevant but hey, you go right ahead and get yourself worked up if you want.

Maybe when you have finished wiping the spit from your chin you can confirm either way in your opinion if that cyclist is indeed a tad reckless or whiter than white.

kenmm

partyguinness wrote: »

My point is: given the dramatically increased risk of death or severe injury that a cyclist is exposed to on a busy road, why would a cyclist not wear a helmet even as a token gesture?

You can say that about anything. Given the dramatically increased risk operating a vehicle entails, why wouldn't car owners get a roll cage fitted as a token gesture.

If your want some perspective, then have a look at the numbers, they don't back up your proposition about the increased risk.

meeeeh

kenmm wrote: »

You can say that about anything. Given the dramatically increased risk operating a vehicle entails, why wouldn't car owners get a roll cage fitted as a token gesture.

If your want some perspective, then have a look at the numbers, they don't back up your proposition about the increased risk.

It's just the ones dealing with head injuries who call for helmets. What would they know.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/almost-70-of-cyclists-without-helmet-at-time-of-head-trauma-1.4030409

It's funny that GAA has less head injuries than cycling and yet kids there have to wear helmets and kids learning to cycle don't. I wonder how many here would allow their little darling to hurling practice without helmet.

Stark

My point is: given the dramatically increased risk of death or severe injury that a cyclist is exposed to on a busy road, why would a cyclist not wear a helmet even as a token gesture?

"token gesture" hits the nail on the head pretty much. Totally ineffective but makes a few people who are overly concerned with others' affairs feel better. At least until they move on to the next thing to complain about whether that be hi-viz, or backpacks (jesus wept) :rolleyes:

magicbastarder

to sum up:
man sees cyclist on busy road, cyclist is not wearing helmet.
man shows annoyance at cyclist not wearing helmet.
man does not show annoyance at lack of provision of safe cycling facilities for cyclists.

repeat.
ad nauseam.

partyguinness

kenmm wrote: »

You can say that about anything. Given the dramatically increased risk operating a vehicle entails, why wouldn't car owners get a roll cage fitted as a token gesture.

If your want some perspective, then have a look at the numbers, they don't back up your proposition about the increased risk.

There we have it again- avoiding a direct question or proposition and pivotting from helmets on cyclists to...wait for it....roll cages in cars.

We are not talking about just "anything". We are specifically talking about helmets on cyclists. In a car v. cyclist situation the car wins every time. Given the limited safety features to hand for a cyclist it is lunacy not to wear one.

partyguinness

magicbastarder wrote: »

to sum up:
man sees cyclist on busy road, cyclist is not wearing helmet.
man shows annoyance at cyclist not wearing helmet.
man does not show annoyance at lack of provision of safe cycling facilities for cyclists.

repeat.
ad nauseam.

No. Re read my post. The lack of helmet was one element. No helmet, earphones, ruck sack, work clothes has absolutely eff all to do with the provision of cycling facilites. I pass plenty of other cyclists who are properly kitted out.

If you want to discuss lack of provisions then go right ahead and start a different debate.

I tell you what guys. You lot would be fecking useless in a debate or a philosophy tutorial. Too much twisting and turning and pivotting.

Pinch Flat

partyguinness wrote: »

There we have it again- avoiding a direct question or proposition and pivotting from helmets on cyclists to...wait for it....roll cages in cars.

We are not talking about just "anything". We are specifically talking about helmets on cyclists. In a car v. cyclist situation the car wins every time. Given the limited safety features to hand for a cyclist it is lunacy not to wear one.

Your concern about cyclists and helmets is heart warming. The whole point of helmets is that I wear one when cycling but a lot of motorists don't give a jot about my safetywith fast, close and aggressive overtaking being almost normal. I'm lucky enough to never have been hit by a car at 80 odd kph, but I'm not confident that piece of polystyrene on my head would offer much protection.

kenmm

partyguinness wrote: »

There we have it again- avoiding a direct question or proposition and pivotting from helmets on cyclists to...wait for it....roll cages in cars.

We are not talking about just "anything". We are specifically talking about helmets on cyclists. In a car v. cyclist situation the car wins every time. Given the limited safety features to hand for a cyclist it is lunacy not to wear one.

Give it to me again, I missed the direct question.

kenmm

meeeeh wrote: »

It's just the ones dealing with head injuries who call for helmets. What would they know.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/almost-70-of-cyclists-without-helmet-at-time-of-head-trauma-1.4030409

.

Lol of course if you ask the people that were directly impacted by something if they would change it they would want to.
There is too much bias there and as an argument it doesn't work (even although it might seem obvious)

breezy1985

partyguinness wrote: »

There we have it again- avoiding a direct question or proposition and pivotting from helmets on cyclists to...wait for it....roll cages in cars.

We are not talking about just "anything". We are specifically talking about helmets on cyclists. In a car v. cyclist situation the car wins every time. Given the limited safety features to hand for a cyclist it is lunacy not to wear one.

If you are that worried about the safety of cyclists why did you beat one up on the side of the road?

Idleater

kenmm wrote: »

Lol of course if you ask the people that were directly impacted by something if they would change it they would want to.
There is too much bias there and as an argument it doesn't work (even although it might seem obvious)

Similar to not cycling folk telling cycling folk how green the grass is on xyz cycle path, and then not listening to the response from those who have actually used said infrastructure.

partyguinness

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Your concern about cyclists and helmets is heart warming. The whole point of helmets is that I wear one when cycling but a lot of motorists don't give a jot about my safetywith fast, close and aggressive overtaking being almost normal. I'm lucky enough to never have been hit by a car at 80 odd kph, but I'm not confident that piece of polystyrene on my head would offer much protection.

All I am concerned about is a somewhat cavalier cyclist taking unnecessary risks is far more likely to do crazy stuff on the road or get caught off guard and maybe fall out in front of me as opposed to Lycra Man who is switched on.

breezy1985

partyguinness wrote: »

All I am concerned about is a somewhat cavalier cyclist taking unnecessary risks is far more likely to do crazy stuff on the road or get caught off guard and maybe fall out in front of me as opposed to Lycra Man who is switched on.

Best way to help protect cyclist would be to fit all cars with speed limiters and breathalysers probably 2 of the biggest causes of road accidents

meeeeh

kenmm wrote: »

Lol of course if you ask the people that were directly impacted by something if they would change it they would want to.
There is too much bias there and as an argument it doesn't work (even although it might seem obvious)

So if you have kids would you send them to hurling without helmet?

And since we are talking of bias couldn't your or mine or anybody elses arguments be dismissed in the same way.

partyguinness

breezy1985 wrote: »

If you are that worried about the safety of cyclists why did you beat one up on the side of the road?

1. Oh now I 'beat' him up. Roughing up with a push back against a wall is not beating him up.
2. It was not on the side of the road- it was on the footpath. That is quite a critical point which you have skirted over.

Is it not obvious why we did it? We do not appreciate nearly being mowed down by a cyclist at night time coming against us at speed and wearing black. He fell into us as he stopped. It was only pure luck we saw him first and had stopped. A kid or a pram walker would have been a very different outcome.

Perhaps he might think twice about repeating such a dangerous stunt and become a responsible road user (as opposed to the footpath)

Again nobody yet has the balls to admit that the cyclist was in the wrong (regardless of what you think of our response).

Idleater

meeeeh wrote: »

So if you have kids would you send them to hurling without helmet?

Wasn't there something like more hurls broken over helmets "per game" now than before mandatory use, and something similar skewed towards those wearing them vs not when they were optional?

magicbastarder

partyguinness wrote: »

No helmet, earphones, ruck sack, work clothes has absolutely eff all to do with the provision of cycling facilites.

you've lost me again. what has the rucksack or work clothes got to do with *anything*?

partyguinness

breezy1985 wrote: »

Best way to help protect cyclist would be to fit all cars with speed limiters and breathalysers probably 2 of the biggest causes of road accidents

I agree and more dedicated cycle paths. Nobody is disputing that premise at all.

But again that has eff all to do with a particular cyclist I see every morning who I perceive as a potential danger due to the factors I have listed out already.

partyguinness

magicbastarder wrote: »

you've lost me again. what has the rucksack or work clothes got to do with *anything*?

Go back and read my posts or else you are just a wind up.

magicbastarder

partyguinness wrote: »

1. Oh now I 'beat' him up.

your fault with your use of language.
first of all you 'roughed him up'.
then you 'had words with him'
now you 'pushed him against a wall'.

and you say it's *us* who'd be useless in a debate. own your words, or else use them more clearly.

Pinch Flat

partyguinness wrote: »

All I am concerned about is a somewhat cavalier cyclist taking unnecessary risks is far more likely to do crazy stuff on the road or get caught off guard and maybe fall out in front of me as opposed to Lycra Man who is switched on.

Ah ok. Out of curiosity do you share this concern for other road users?

partyguinness

magicbastarder wrote: »

your fault with your use of language.
first of all you 'roughed him up'.
then you 'had words with him'
now you 'pushed him against a wall'.

and you say it's *us* who'd be useless in a debate. own your words, or else use them more clearly.

Again how does that equate to 'beating him up'? How you interpret is up to you.

This is hilarious. Care to admit the cyclist was wrong or do you want to keep playing word games?

Anyone?

[Deleted User]

Look at these inconsiderate louts, should be arrested, no helmet or hi viz OMG, call de gards!?1?!/

Never mind, I'll sort them out with a good thrashing meself cos I care about their safety