DoraDelite wrote: » Are you being deliberately obtuse?
magicbastarder wrote: » are you still talking about the clontarf baths? i guess a motorist can't be expected to see the multiple yellow and black concrete bollards, multiple 'caution: cyclists' messages painted on the ground, the extra plastic bollards...
Spook_ie wrote: » NOTHING
DoraDelite wrote: » Are you being deliberately obtuse? it is clear to anyone who has eyes that there is a cycle path there, parking blocking it is illegal as per my initial comment. It is the same as parking across a dropped kerb or in front of an entrance/exit and across pedestrian crossings, you don't need paint or signs to see what you are parking in front of. I did not comment on what was written on the car so I didn't refuse to acknowledge it, I challenged your assertion that the car wasn't illegally parked.
magicbastarder wrote: » https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3603241,-6.2044774,3a,75y,208.81h,62.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJwUoc9DcZZDHRU3mL47EvQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 you should not be allowed to be left in control of a car.
Spook_ie wrote: » Look at the photo and put yourself in the driving seat, what plastic bollards, what signage? Do you mean the caution cyclists sign or do you see some Cycle Lane signage that I'm not seeing. There is NOTHING that you would see from the drivers seat of a vehicle that gives any indication of there being a cycle lane. An out of town driver would have no clue in reality as to there being a cycle lane there, you just don't see it because you know the area and have a blinkered viewpoint.
DoraDelite wrote: » I can't believe I am even doing this :rolleyes: in this streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3602697,-6.2059096,3a,75y,262.99h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sug1Scto7MfhljmYfWHaYTw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 1. There is A DROPPED KERB, this is illegal to park in front of, full stop 2. There is a painted bike just after the dropped kerb, clue that it might be a cycle lane there 3. There is "Caution Cyclists" right in front of you on the ground, yet another clue of a cycle lane 4. A bunch of cones to stop drivers parking across the lane Anyone who can't see any of that should hand back their licence as they are clearly blind.
kenmm wrote: » I get that the markings/signage could be better, but anyone who has ever been anywhere near that section of road knows there are cyclists all over (it's busy practically all day and night), the lane and pavement follow the road, It doesn't even look like a normal junction (more like a driveway).
TaurenDruid wrote: » You know where the search function is as well as the rest of us.
kenmm wrote: » You know that literally doesn't necessarily mean literally in the traditional sense and can be used simply to emphasise a point?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » In my experience, the search function doesn't show things that aren't there.
Spook_ie wrote: » Go back to the original photo He isn't blocking a dropped kerb, he might be encroaching on it but blocking it, in yer dreams Clues as to it being a cycle lane are not sufficient to claim it's an obvious "busy 24/7 segregated cycle lane" There is a caution cyclist signage from the opposite direction, still doesn't indicate a cycle lane What cones, the ones that were there in 2019 according to Google Street View, Yer definitely in the land of yer dreams now.
micar wrote: » Spook.ie take a few deep breaths and relax. Just drop it. The motorist shouldn't have parked there. The person shouldn't have written on the window be it with lip stick, permanent marker or a whiteboard market. The exit point is blocked for all vehicles making the yield signs redundant. Finally, your constant use of language like graffiti and vandalism is utterly pathetic. You have an very serious unhealthy issue with cyclists. Like all taxi drivers in their 60s, you are a know it all. Let's talk about the weather......terribley windy, the days are getting shorter.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Could we get a list of words that don't mean what they say, to avoid future confusion please?
DoraDelite wrote: » Partially blocking the lane is still the same as blocking it, it would come under creating a hazard also, which is what this guy has done. I never said it was obvious that it's a busy 24/7 segregated cycle lane. I stated that it is one, nothing about who it's obvious to. I will say it is obvious to everyone apart from the tiny minority of people who have never been to Clontarf since it was built. To get in to the baths to park, you first have to drive parallel to this cycle lane which is, any any given day rammed with cyclists. You then have to enter at this point https://www.google.com/maps/@53.3603214,-6.2045591,3a,75y,185.76h,59.77t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqp1sS5zOxAqH8mqfWz7HEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 before you get to where that guy parked. So under the assumption that you have never been to Clontarf post cycle lane and failed to observe that you drove alongside a cycle lane, crossed that same cycle lane and then parked obstructing it, then you should probably be charged with driving without due care and attention. Alternatively, here's the address to post your licence back: National Driver Licence Service Po Box 858 Southside Delivery Office Cork
Spook_ie wrote: » Try this end[/url]
Spook_ie wrote: » ...you wouldn't know if the cycle lane continues or not....
Spook_ie wrote: » Now let's instead talk about what you think it should be called then, perhaps if someone came across your abode and wrote on your house windows or front door. what would you like to call it?
TaurenDruid wrote: » Yeah, two or three of us have been slagging you for weeks now cos of something you didn't say. And no, I'm still not looking it up for you.
magicbastarder wrote: » again, motorists are very, very, very dim if they don't cop the cycle lane there. motorists park over the cycle lane there because they can and don't care; not because they don't realise they're parking on a cycle lane. to suggest otherwise is laughable.
DoraDelite wrote: » Seriously, hand back your licence, if you are not observing any of the markings that have been repeatedly pointed out to you in multiple posts then you really should not be driving.
micar wrote: » Let's keep it to a car.. . Can't park a house like a tw@t. Be man enough and think ........I should not have parked there, a bit d1ckish and point taken.......then wipe/rub it off and move on No need to go all CSI to find out what the marker was made of and who could possiblely have done it.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Could you point to any actual examples of where some here employed literally that standard please?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » It really doesn't matter how many of you have been slagging or how long you've been slagging for. If you can't show where I said what you're claiming I said, then I didn't say it.
TaurenDruid wrote: » It's right there in writing. Still not giving you a link, though.
SeanW wrote: » This entire thread has been you repeating the mantra (general paraphrase here) "cyclists don't kill people, motorists do." "Motorists kill 2 or 3 people every week". This. entire. thread.
literally the standard being employed by some here "if you don't die or nobody dies, you have no reason to complain.""
SeanW wrote: » The standard is thus that if lawbreakers don't kill, the laws regulating them shouldn't be enforced lest such enforcement get in the way of your crusade against motorists. So pedestrians who regularly have to jump out of the way of lawbreaking cyclists, pedestrians who who are regularly hit by lawbreaking cyclists, drivers who find their cars vandalised by lawbreaking cyclists, can go suck it up.
Spook_ie wrote: » Whether I know or not is NOT the point, the point is that if someone from the 2,641,590 (2013 CSO Figure, likely higher now and doesn't include EU or EEC licenses ) people in Ireland who held an Irish driving license came to Clontarf on their first trip, would they know that there was a cycle lane there, the answer is NO, because it isn't signposted as a cycle lane. That's the be all and end all of it and if you can't see the validity of that argument then it's not me who is blind or dim.
