A girl I work with lives in Blanchardstown, she drives daily to Summerhill in her car. Why t f?
What’s wrong with a modest hatch back?
She’s unmarried and no kids. What the f does she need it for?
The most dangerous driving I have seen lately, two separate instances, both Honda Jazz cars. One a pensioner and another is a fellow parent of a pre school child. Incompetent, inconsiderate driving and highly likely to hit someone.
Which is something you have assumed, not something that is a certainty with the vehicle shown or any vehicle.
There is no way you could know if that same driver in a saloon would have provided more space. Their driving aptitude is the salient point, that much has not 'gone over my head'.
The salient point, which appears to have gone over your head, is that the sense of entitlement that embodies the decision to buy one of these vehicles also embodies the daily driving style of the owner of the vehicle.
Sure "m8". Always good to retire instead of trying and failing to look clever.
the post was to illustrate how those SUV style vehicles are unsuitable and potentially dangerous on city streets..
Which it failed to do; SUV/Car/van - the salient point was there was insufficient space left for the cyclist.
Drive aptitude and attitude is a far bigger issue; yet this thread is simply a "I don't like/need a certain type of car so no one else should have one."
Looks like the RSA need to start rerunning their 'leave more space' ads again. And again. And again.
Edit: continued upgrade of our cycling infrastructure also required.
Bore off m8
There's no cycle lane along the road if you have a look at the images I added…
Getting off topic, the post was to illustrate how those SUV style vehicles are unsuitable and potentially dangerous on city streets..
How about you just discuss the main topic instead of trying and failing to look clever?
You mean like posting simplistic jibes of "Living in your head rent free eh?"……
Or maybe you'll give us a lecture again on how people should read more as you cherry pick hyperbolic buzzwords from the daily mail…that level of discussion.
Highlighting nonsensical comparisons is discussion. You just don't like it so have to come up with "living rent free" posts "trying and failing to look clever".
Ah I see. From the look of those first 2 photos it looked like you had (from left to right) a footpath, a cycle lane and a 2-way road. I also assumed being on his bike that he would be in the cycle lane. In that case the car driver absolutely should have waited behind the cyclist until it was safe to overtake.
Thankfully these occurrences are rare but I do think if it was possible to send videos and pictures like these to the cops and get them taken care of they'd be even less common
Like many others I find it hard to visualise 1.5m so I just treat it like a car and pull my car right over to the other lane when overtaking a cyclist.
Who's the idiot here, me for repeating a known phrase, or you for thinking it was just some sh 1t i made up…
And yet here you are yourself immediately …"rent free" indeed.
It's a discussion forum, it shouldn't be a surprise when people reply.
Living in your head rent free eh?
Wait until you hear above the "Panzer tanks" that are cruising our streets……
For me I wouldn't, I'd wait until it was safe to overtake. Same as I indicated the pickup driver should do. However there wasn't enough room there for a 'normal' car either… so the 'unnecessary' large car isnt the issue here, rather the width or lack thereof of the road with what looks like an overtly wide extension to the footpath.
Since when did SUVs morph into jeeps and pick ups?
If so, do cars still need to give the 1.5m of space. One would think that as long as they are on the road that would be enough, no?
Imagine the person on the bike was your child - would you drive past them in the manner shown in the images and, if not, why not?
"pickup driver should have waited to overtake in a safe spot"
That's the issue.
There is no cycle lane, but even if there was, if the cyclist is on the road, the driver needs to leave safe space when overtaking.
there's no cycle lane and the SUV driver should have waited:
I'm not familiar with that stretch of road, is the whiter path to the left of the road the cycle lane you are in? If so, do cars still need to give the 1.5m of space. One would think that as long as they are on the road that would be enough, no?
Rathgar village? Definitely need a massive Ford SUV for bringing Junior to school around the corner, how else would one do that without 4WD and massive tyres, that area down towards the River Dodder is like the Serengeti… 🙄
The problem is not the car there, it's that the road is clearly not wide enough for bike plus car plus car. It would be the same issue if you replace the car with a large delivery van, or a lorry, or an ambulance etc etc
What the above (taking the photo at face value) shows me is that that area needs a cycle lane, and that that pickup driver should have waited to overtake in a safe spot .
As you've confirmed yourself, crashes involving SUVs are more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists than crashes involving other vehicles. Sorry if that gets up your nose a bit.
Your claim that I claimed that the other poster claimed that collisions between SUVs and children never happened is bogus. I never said that.
Are you denying claiming that cyclists need extra regulation and motorists don't?
Here's my typical encounter with a Ford Danger driver today.
Note the distance from my hand to the vehicle, which was within a half arm length of me. The driver, with a small child in the passenger seat, was entirely oblivious that he had done anything wrong.
I’d say definitely a sub editor. She’s is the most anticar motoring “journalist” ever. Pro cycling and EV, and against everything else
Sounds like a well measured and balanced article for once!
i wonder did she pick the headline, or a subeditor?
Bigger, heavier vehicles with taller bonnets, etc. are more likely to kill but driving style and enforcement play as much a part in road safety
Poxy paywall. What's it about below the free portion?
The start does include stats that pedestrians and children are 44% and 82% more likely to be killed in a collision by an SUV versus a car.
Geraldine Herbert discusses how it is not just what we drive that kills but how we drive…
https://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/geraldine-herbert-its-not-suvs-that-make-our-roads-dangerous-its-the-way-we-drive/a833363159.html
Sean, drivers will make mistakes everyone knows that. Crashes will inevitably happen no matter how safe we think we can be.
When these mistakes happen the size of the vehicle will be a factor. Just because there is very few crashes out of x drivers doesn't mean we should stop improving safety.
Nuance, devil in the detail. Regulation based on reason and logic takes time.
Communists screeching to have something banned, not regulated, without an accepted definition of what they want banned is quite different scenario.
