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

Stark

partyguinness wrote: »

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?

Assault is a greater offence than cycling on a footpath.

Pinch Flat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Shocking behaviour. I was in Amsterdam earlier this year and this was the carry on. Cycling around with out a care on the world. Even children. And women in skirts.

partyguinness

Stark wrote: »

Assault is a greater offence than cycling on a footpath.

So you agree that the cyclist was wrong?

kenmm

meeeeh wrote: »

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.

Ok, I didn't say anything about hurling. That is a case of false equivalence.

And yes, you can say that about anything, that's why there is a scientific community that performs peer reviews to eliminate such biases. We should look to that community in making policy decisions.

Regardless, those affected by head injuries are absolutely right to campaign for increased head protection (I probably would in that position!). But I wouldn't necessary allow it to dictate policy or law.

If you look at contact sports in general, there has been a lot of research in that field (no pun meant!) and that is why overall it is thought to be better to wear head gear. Particularly when you break it down into the nature of head injury and the effects of repeated knocks on the head and long term effects.

If you want to get into that, then cycling is a different beast. There is a risk that you will come off and seriously break something (including your head), but its not the same a contact sport at all. That's why I cite the example of roll cages in cars - Absolutely, it would
make things safer in the event of that rare occasion where a car comes off the road a flips over, but that is quite unlikely and therefore the advantages are somewhat negated (Except of course in motor sports).

By the way - you will not that I am not arguing for or against any of this. I am am looking for fairness and balance (Yes, in boards.ie!) and just saying that there are many valid reasons for and against mandated helmet use for bicycles, but so far, most countries see more advantages than disadvantages for not making them compulsory.

partyguinness

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Shocking behaviour. I was in Amsterdam earlier this year and this was the carry on. Cycling around with out a care on the world. Even children. And women in skirts.

Yeah because that is exactly the same and just like a busy downhill A road with zero cycle paths during the morning rush hour commute.

Deal with reality.

kenmm

partyguinness wrote: »

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.

Hold on then - is this all down to one cyclist nemesis that you have?

Stop him and have a word, maybe it will turn into a beautiful friendship!

[Deleted User]

partyguinness wrote: »

So you agree that the cyclist was wrong?

magicbastarder

partyguinness wrote: »

How you interpret is up to you.

uh-uh. if you want to partake in a debate and be taken seriously, the first onus is on *you* to explain yourself.
there is a greater responsibility on you to explain yourself clearly than there is on me to try to interpret your unclear words.

frankly, i don't care about - and don't believe - your anecdote. but you're continuing to maintain you got physical with the cyclist, so don't expect people to have empathy with you.

Duckjob

partyguinness wrote: »

I would refer you back to the last sentence of my original post where I distinguished between those cyclists who go the whole hog on their commute that are fine and then shall we say more amateurish cyclists:

The wannabe Chris Froome lycra louts are fine. It's the dickheads above that are the danger to everyone else.

(From todays RTE news) I'll just leave this here-

Gardaí express disappointment over Bank Holiday traffic offences

There were 105 suspected offences for drink-driving, and 55 offences for drug-driving.

Four people lost their lives on the roads during the Bank Holiday weekend.

.... the amount of people arrested for drug-driving has increased by 100% during the first 6 months in 2020.

In the run up to the August Bank Holiday weekend, she said figures show that gardaí arrested an additional 625 people for drink-driving.

Also, during the August bank holiday weekend, a driver was detected driving at a speed of 203 km/ph on the M1 near Drogheda.

Assistant Commissioner Hilman said the Roads Policing Unit detected over 2, 600 instants of excessive speed last weekend.

She said another driver was caught driving 101 km/ per hour over the speed limit which was a 50 km/ph limit.

But yep, definitely a good way to spend our time raging about people on bikes not wearing polystyrene hats on their heads, or having earphones and oversized rucksacks on their backs.

partyguinness

Deleted User wrote: »

What hole would that be?

Pointing out careless behaviour from cyclist and expecting die hard posters on the cycling forum to have the balls to acknowlege it.

Still waiting......

breezy1985

partyguinness wrote: »

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).

Roughing up means giving a beating in most places which there is no excuse for so maybe be more clear the next time you boast about attacking someone. Also if he stopped in time how was it ye who saw him first? You didnt have to jump out of the way so what happened exactly

I think he was wrong to cycle on the path as I hate any adult doing that but its no need for 2 peolpe to "rough" someone up whatever that means

magicbastarder

meeeeh wrote: »

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.

hurling is a contact sport. it requires helmets.
in cycling, *all* forms of sporting activity which involve cycling (to the best of my knowledge) - even though it is not a contact sport per se - regard helmets as mandatory.

cycling to the shops is not a contact sport.
ergo, i don't see the analogy as being particularly useful.

breezy1985

magicbastarder wrote: »

hurling is a contact sport. it requires helmets.
in cycling, *all* forms of sporting activity which involve cycling (to the best of my knowledge) - even though it is not a contact sport per se - regard helmets as mandatory.

cycling to the shops is not a contact sport.
ergo, i don't see the analogy as being particularly useful.

Yep GAA have a responsibility to its players especially the young. A cyclist not wearing a helmet ( I always do but didnt when yngr ) has little impact on others

partyguinness

Duckjob wrote: »

(From todays RTE news) I'll just leave this here-

Gardaí express disappointment over Bank Holiday traffic offences

But yeah, dem earphone & rucksack wearing maniacs are the main problem on our roads.

But you see...well no you don't actually.

Nobody is disputing that at all. It is reckless for a cyclist to engage in such a mannner on a busy road

Again would you regard it is a good behaviour or are you just going to keep throwing out red herrings with irrelevant posts and stats which have eff all to do with this particular cyclist.

Again...anyone?

kenmm

partyguinness wrote: »

But you see...well no you don't actually.

Nobody is disputing that at all. It is reckless for a cyclist to engage in such a mannner on a busy road

Again would you regard it is a good behaviour or are you just going to keep throwing out red herrings with irrelevant posts and stats which have eff all to do with this particular cyclist.

Again...anyone?

What do you mean by this bit in bold. I am determined to understand where you are coming from here.

magicbastarder

if you ask me, it sounds like he's saying that motorised traffic is so dangerous, people cannot be on the road without protective equipment, and thus we should be curtailing the use of motorised vehicles?

magicbastarder

and rucksacks.

partyguinness

magicbastarder wrote: »

uh-uh. if you want to partake in a debate and be taken seriously, the first onus is on *you* to explain yourself.
there is a greater responsibility on you to explain yourself clearly than there is on me to try to interpret your unclear words.

frankly, i don't care about - and don't believe - your anecdote. but you're continuing to maintain you got physical with the cyclist, so don't expect people to have empathy with you.

For someone who does not care or believe my anecdote you sure have invested a lot of time replying. I am not sure what world you live in but I am not in the habit of making up anecdotes and posting them on internet forums. Real life is far stranger.

At this stage it is not even remotely relevant what you believe but it is quite amusing that you are so Evengelical you cannot bring yourself to admit that a fellow cyclist was in the wrong or acting in a less than steller manner. I guess that is the why cycling forum has such a bad reputation.

I'm out and I'll leave you at it. No more to be said.

shootermacg

"OVER THE BANK holiday weekend, gardaí stopped 105 motorists for suspected drink driving as well as 55 suspected drug driving offences.

In addition, gardaí detected 2,624 instances of excessive speed over the weekend with one motorist clocked at over 200 km/h.

Four people died on the country’s roads over the weekend with 10 people suffering serious injuries."

https://www.thejournal.ie/garda-roads-5169937-Aug2020/

kenmm

partyguinness wrote: »

For someone who does not care or believe my anecdote you sure have invested a lot of time replying. I am not sure what world you live in but I am not in the habit of making up anecdotes and posting them on internet forums. Real life is far stranger.

At this stage it is not even remotely relevant what you believe but it is quite amusing that you are so Evengelical you cannot bring yourself to admit that a fellow cyclist was in the wrong or acting in a less than steller manner. I guess that is the why cycling forum has such a bad reputation.

I'm out and I'll leave you at it. No more to be said.

Wait - this is the person on grafton street?

Someone cycling down a pedestrianised street (and not paying attention) - is a bit of a (unt - I dont think thats up for debate?

kenmm

partyguinness wrote: »

I'm out and I'll leave you at it. No more to be said.

C'mon - I want to make this work - don't leave now!

I am seriously trying to understand! It's the only way to end these endless threads!

Pinch Flat

partyguinness wrote: »

Yeah because that is exactly the same and just like a busy downhill A road with zero cycle paths during the morning rush hour commute.

Deal with reality.

I'm trying to get to the bottom of your concerns about cyclists. Is it cycling on footpaths? Or A roads or cyclists in general (i suspect we'll move onto "road tax", insurance and hi vis as these seem natural segways in such interactions) or are you just altruistic in nature?

Pinch Flat

shootermacg wrote: »

"OVER THE BANK holiday weekend, gardaí stopped 105 motorists for suspected drink driving as well as 55 suspected drug driving offences.

In addition, gardaí detected 2,624 instances of excessive speed over the weekend with one motorist clocked at over 200 km/h.

Four people died on the country’s roads over the weekend with 10 people suffering serious injuries."

https://www.thejournal.ie/garda-roads-5169937-Aug2020/

Yeah but cyclists

breezy1985

partyguinness wrote: »

For someone who does not care or believe my anecdote you sure have invested a lot of time replying. I am not sure what world you live in but I am not in the habit of making up anecdotes and posting them on internet forums. Real life is far stranger.

At this stage it is not even remotely relevant what you believe but it is quite amusing that you are so Evengelical you cannot bring yourself to admit that a fellow cyclist was in the wrong or acting in a less than steller manner. I guess that is the why cycling forum has such a bad reputation.

I'm out and I'll leave you at it. No more to be said.

Yay go us. Were badass https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqSzDJGFCgI

Thargor

magicbastarder wrote: »

and rucksacks.

And d1ckheads, dont forget them, cycling to work in their work clothes, God I hate them.

breezy1985

Thargor wrote: »

And d1ckheads, dont forget them, cycling to work in their work clothes, God I hate them.

Ya they should dress more like Froome and the other lycra louts and carry all the work gear in their jersey pockets

Pinch Flat

breezy1985 wrote: »

Ya they should dress more like Froome and the other lycra louts and carry all the work gear in their jersey pockets

Or in a rucksack

micar

partyguinness wrote: »

A dickhead ploughed into us one night on the footpath.......... He came to a grinding halt in front of us on the footpath and then half toppled over.

Same event but two different outcomes 1) cycled into you or 2) stopped in from of you

Which is it?

07Lapierre

partyguinness wrote: »

Oh darn it...you got me. I was indeed offended by his fashion sense.

And there I was trying to fool you into thinking I thought the cyclist was a dickhead for a having a large rucksack that above the back of his head BTW..not one of those small sacks.. and then throw in some earphones on a busy road and no helmet for good measure.

You lot really love taking points out of context don't you in order to get all puffed up and indignant about poor persecuted cyclists.

And again completely ignore the illegal actions of the cyclist. Good man.

Cycling on the pavement is illegal.
Cycling on a cycle path is legal.
Wearing a backpack while cycling is perfectly safe and legal.
Clear?

[Deleted User]

partyguinness wrote: »

Oh right. This is about me now. If you want to start a thread about motorists wearing head gear go for it. No need to shout. It makes you look demented.

You seemed absolutely detemined to twist this around.

Can you really not see the absolute gaping hypocrisy in expecting cyclists to do everything possible to protect themselves but you deciding that you couldn't be arsed to wear a crash helmet, or have hi-vis stripes on your car, or fit a speed limiter to your car.

If you don't walk the talk, you don't have any credibility to be dishing out the lectures to others.

Tea drinker wrote: »

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.

So the driver pulled into the yellow box, blocking the cyclist's path, and was surprised when the cyclist letting him know about it?

Tea drinker wrote: »

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)

I've driven and cycled that road. The main danger is chancers pulling out of Whitebeam determined to stake their claim on a place in the queue to turn right to Beech Hill and not caring about how many lanes of traffic they block to do so.

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

Funnily enough, being an expert in treating injury does not make you expert in preventing injury. They are two different areas of expertise.

If they were actually interested in preventing injury, they would have asked the much more important question about what percentage of drivers and passengers arriving with head trauma were wearing helmets. Both the percentage answer (100%) and the absolute quantity answer would have been much higher.

But that's never quite as much fun as taking a swipe at cyclists.

meeeeh wrote: »

It's funny that GAA has less head injuries than cycling

Source please.

partyguinness wrote: »

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.

Can you please clarify what specifically is your problem with cyclists wearing ruck sacks or work clothes?

magicbastarder wrote: »

hurling is a contact sport. it requires helmets.
in cycling, *all* forms of sporting activity which involve cycling (to the best of my knowledge) - even though it is not a contact sport per se - regard helmets as mandatory.

cycling to the shops is not a contact sport.
ergo, i don't see the analogy as being particularly useful.

Just as two or three lads having a knockabout with hurls and a slioter is not a contact sport, and is generally done without wearing of helmets.

Anyway, here's this week's 'exceedingly rare' late red light jumpers. The first one was so late, the light went green just after she crossed, though she wouldn't have known that. When I caught up, I could see a phone on her lap (illegal) with a voice call open, so perhaps that distracted her. The second guys entered the junction after they had red, having completely ignored the amber.

https://streamable.com/wxsrjd