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?
It's a sensible basis for online discussions. Have you responded on every single issue that has come up on this thread.
There's no contradiction. I didn't make any comment about the other party. I commented on their post and their tactic.
Attack the post not the poster - it's a well established principle around here.
Whatever.
Doesn't matter what you're attacking, it's still a contradiction, no matter how much you try to weasel out of it.
"I never claimed I'm better than you, I'm merely saying I won't get dragged down to your level" is you saying you're at a higher level than they are.
But again, whatever. Makes a change from posting links to dead kids in order to browbeat everyone into submission, I suppose.
Of course it would not stop at SUVs, that's a given. Many of the people on this thread shrieking about SUVs seem to have a gripe with Irish drivers in general. Even if every SUV was taken off the road and everyone moved down to a Toyota Aygo, many of the posters here, including some of the most prolific would still be shrieking about "drivers" doing this, that and whatever else, still complaining about how much more regulations and taxes that need to be rammed down drivers throats etc.
It would never stop.
You literally stated that previous posters had suggested that fatal SUV-child collisions were not happening, so I withdraw nothing. In your own words:
to answer the suggestion that children are not getting killed by SUVs
which literally nobody claimed.
Why not? Have cyclists become that soft? If so you shouldn’t ignore those questions your did ignore
It's saying that their argument is in the gutter and I'm not going to go there. Personal attacks are against the rules around here.I didn't claim that he said that children are never getting killed by SUVs. I didn't use that word. That was your bogus claim.
Are you going to withdraw your bogus claim?
"The point of the post is to answer the suggestion that children are not getting killed by SUVs with an example of how a child was fairly recently killed by an SUV."
Your words. Who suggested this? Who made this "suggestion?"
I'm reporting this post as it's the latest one on the thread - but really it's the usual suspect AndrewJRenko dragging the thread around in circles, arguing over semantics of words used in posts and the usual "i said, you said, you lied, retract your lie" nonsense.
Multiple other posters rising to the bait.
Could someone please tell them all to give over.
You asked would you drive past your child at 30km/h a meter away, I'm saying it happens all the time, that's all.
SeanW and AJR really just need to go out on a cycle with each other. or a nice long drive in the countryside.
Hah, that was meant to be a report to mods - but never mind, it's out there now.
The angels dancing on the head of a pin back and forth arguments would drive you mad (hopefully at a distance of at least 1.5m though 🤣)
Just ICYMI, I didn't start with the semantic arguments, or with the 'retract your lie' nonsense, but when others want to go down that road, I don't mind joining them.
Haven't we been over this before? Please keep up, that claim was in this post.
.I didn't claim that he said that children are never getting killed by SUVs. I didn't use that word. That was your bogus claim.
never
It's saying that their argument is in the gutter and I'm not going to go there.
Yeah……because it's beneath you. You're above all that…..i.e. superior, which is another word for 'better than'. You claimed you never said anything about being better than anyone, then immediately said you were better than me and wouldn't be getting dragged down to my level. You're now backpedaling, trying to claim you meant your arguments were superior, as if that makes any difference.
Personal attacks are against the rules around here.
This sentence is another example of a smarmy, sneery, 'holier than thou' comment, btw. Like something Mehole would say. Playing to the crowd.
I didn't claim that he said that children are never getting killed by SUVs. I didn't use that word. That was your bogus claim.Are you going to withdraw your bogus claim?
I didn't claim that he said that children are never getting killed by SUVs. I didn't use that word. That was your bogus claim.
Which claim was that, chief? You sure it was mine?
All 100% correct except the “playing to the crowd” comment. That would require him to have a crowd who take him seriously
Cycists are still as soft as ever but now they have grown in number, albeit from a small base, so are getting hit by vehicles more often
It's funny to see how far you have to go to change my actual words to find something for you to complain about, as clearly the actual words I used aren't getting you over the line.
That bogus claim comment was meant for Seanie not you, but Vanilla on mobile strikes again.
Have to say I love large cars -even if they’re old,(but well serviced of course) you just feel a whole lot more in control on the road - it’s psychological in the main I know - and yes, mostly wasteful in terms of fuel consumption - but how many less new cars would have been built had we a culture of looking after what we have and providing incentives for people to keep older cars going and well serviced instead of throwing grants at over priced new EVs? I’m not anti EV- more anti waste - but yeah, people often buy new large cars simply because they can afford them vs any real need for them - i don’t think you can change that - we as consumers buy what’s available
More smarmy nonsense.
Good luck, I'm out.
Maybe take a break from sullying the memory of dead kids to score fake internet points next time. Might make your cleaner than clean act a bit more believable.
At least you admit there are very few if no practical reasons for most people.
Re: your servicing old cars point - we SHOULD be doing that. Too much sh*t nowadays is full of planned obselence, see washing machines, dishwashers, cars any type of large tech/machinery.
That’s why I’m not getting the point of this thread -consumers often buy what they want- not what they need. A car is no different than any other good for many - if you have the money and the inclination, then big and flashy is what you do- regardless of need.
The Ford escort/Opel Kadett or Toyota Corolla were all standard family size cars back in the day - but between everything from finance, better earning power and changing tastes, much bigger cars have taken over that market now - it’s part manufacturers part consumer demand - it probably started with MPVs like the Renault Espace and the like and now consumers won’t look at “just enough” anymore - even the city runaround has morfed into things like the Kajar or bastardised Yaris - it’s not solely the consumers “fault”
I think the thread started because the OP probably doesn't view a car as just another good. For a lot of people I would argue a car tool which is required for daily life not lets say a TV/Ipad/Smartswatch.
Cars have a bigger impact on the world and your surroundings then typical goods which are chosen for style rather then utility.
Certainly there are people who view it as a tool and want to spend the least amount possible - I guess that’s why Dacia’s exist - for many others, it’s probably much more than that - some form of status or message to the world or whatever - or simply, I don’t have much in life so feic it, I’m gonna buy me a kick ass car
Are we allowed mention the adults who are killed in collisions with SUVs?
AJR; you do realise you're actually not just 'not helping'; you're hindering.
you're posting anecdotes or single instances as if they were data; which you would not allow from someone arguing against you. you're bogging the thread down in 'you said that i said that you said' guff.
That’s quite a pathetic post.
So we definitely shouldn't mention older people being killed in collisions with SUVs then?
I know your advice is well intentioned, but honestly, leave out the tone policing.
I'm not suggesting anything as data. I am suggesting that there's a very real human, personal cost arising from the decision to choose an SUV and the decisions about how to drive an SUV. No more and no less than that.
You are making the assumption that a different type of car would have resulted in a different outcome which you have no way of knowing in these specific cases.
Where exactly did I make that assumption? Please quote me back my words that include that assumption.
I presume your short term memory will allow you to recall the last post you made but if not please see below. Suggesting that it's the fact it was an suv that resulted in the outcomes for the deceased or injured.
I am suggesting that there's a very real human, personal cost arising from the decision to choose an SUV.
