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

Cyclists on a Backroad

El Inho

I can't be the only person whose head is absolutely melted by the sheer quantity of people in clothes which are far too tight, with tortoises on their head taking up the roads of Ireland on their bikes...

I have nothing against cycling. Its a fantastic form of transport, but these people are taking up room, and are an accident waiting to happen. When cycling for fitness instead of practicality can you not please bring your bikes to a main road where there is space?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Mycroft H

gramar wrote: »

It mightn't be a bad idea for pedestrians either.

A test no matter what kind it is will never mean that any person is completely competent or knowledgeable but in the case of a road safety test then at least it would show that they are aware of the fundamental safety issues that any user of the public highway should be familiar with.
Cyclists on public roads are subject to pretty much the same rules as people in cars etc but yet are not subjected to at least a theory test.

Start licensing and testing cyclists and watch the numbers of cyclists plummet. I'd have to carry ID going down to the shop for heavens sake. And then what? Have a number plate on my bicycle? No thanks.

And that's a good thing you say? Not really. More cars on the road. More pollution. More early morning traffic jams. More deaths/injuries on the roads. Why? Because cyclists don't kill people on the roads, cars do.

Cycling is something we need to be encouraging. Cuts pollution. Creates a healthier population (which in the long run, reduces the strain on the HSE). Removes cars off the roads which is better for everyone.

Black Leather

94tgdmxj6s370p wrote: »

OP,

My theory for the persecution complex amongst cyclists is that a high proportion of cyclists are members of the gay community (the tight fitting lycra and various other homo erotic aspects of cycling seems to attract them) and they are used to parading around "asserting" their "rights" and feeling the whole world is against them!

Speaking as a straight male leisure cyclist, who wears Lycra, I have to dispute your theory that a high proportion of cyclists are gay. Cycling is as masculine a pursuit as one can get. What exactly are the " various other homo erotic aspects " of cycling?

Icyseanfitz

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I've no problem with people who use bikes as transportation using back roads, but people who are cycling as some form of recreation, i.e. covered in spandex, carbon fibre bikes, head down so clearly not enjoying the scenery....well, they're basically putting themselves and other road users at risk for what is ultimately a stupid ****ing hobby

id be thinking modified cars would be a much more stupid hobby these days considering the price of petrol and the speed limit on roads/ lack of proper race tracks in this country hmmm

Surveyor11

Black Leather wrote: »

What exactly are the " various other homo erotic aspects " of cycling?

Not sure. On the prospect of impending good weather and migration to short sleeved Lycra tops and shorts, myself and the lads on the Sunday spin were discussing the various merits of leg shaving and (possibly) using fake tan on the exposed bits. Does that count?

gramar

BX 19 wrote: »

Start licensing and testing cyclists and watch the numbers of cyclists plummet. I'd have to carry ID going down to the shop for heavens sake. And then what? Have a number plate on my bicycle? No thanks.

And that's a good thing you say? Not really. More cars on the road. More pollution. More early morning traffic jams. More deaths/injuries on the roads. Why? Because cyclists don't kill people on the roads, cars do.

Cycling is something we need to be encouraging. Cuts pollution. Creates a healthier population (which in the long run, reduces the strain on the HSE). Removes cars off the roads which is better for everyone.

Oh merciful god, having to carry an ID down to the shop. It's hardly a ball and chain around you ankle now is it?
No mention of number plates - a simple license that demonstrates that the cyclist has a sufficient knowledge of the rules of the road. There is no reason why it should mean plummeting numbers of cyclists. A bit of an overreaction.

Car's may be involved in accidents but it doesn't necessarily mean they are at fault. I see cyclist take turns without signalling, run read lights and cycle at night without lights or reflective material on a daily basis.
Not to mention cycling around half cut but sure that's ok.

glic71rods46t0

Black Leather wrote: »

Speaking as a straight male leisure cyclist, who wears Lycra, I have to dispute your theory that a high proportion of cyclists are gay. Cycling is as masculine a pursuit as one can get. What exactly are the " various other homo erotic aspects " of cycling?

I got infracted for that post - someone got their knickers in a twist and reported the post even though most mature viewers would appreciate the humour in it!
So you're curious about the homo erotic aspects of cycling - well I can't help you - I don't want to upset anyone here, maybe start asking your cycling buddies;)

glic71rods46t0

Surveyor11 wrote: »

Not sure. On the prospect of impending good weather and migration to short sleeved Lycra tops and shorts, myself and the lads on the Sunday spin were discussing the various merits of leg shaving and (possibly) using fake tan on the exposed bits. Does that count?

@Black leather - see above I rest my case:D

Mycroft H

gramar wrote: »

Car's may be involved in accidents but it doesn't necessarily mean they are at fault. I see cyclist take turns without signalling, run read lights and cycle at night without lights or reflective material on a daily basis.
Not to mention cycling around half cut but sure that's ok.

Find me statistics to say that cyclists are at fault more than cars in accidents involving both and I'll donate 10 euro to your favourite charity.

thebullkf

NS77 wrote: »

Eh? What danger do cyclists present? I think you'll find the danger is posed by reckless and impatient drivers....

eh... the constant light breaking, cycling with no lights @ dusk /darkness.

Not the mention the recent upsurge (that i've seen) of cyclists cycling towards you ...on your side of the road... 3 times in last 2 days...

As usual the militant rabid defending by the usual suspects when it comes to a bit of criticism of cyclists. Its no wonder the cycling forum is so poor on this site. Shame really.

AnonoBoy

Black Leather wrote: »

What exactly are the " various other homo erotic aspects " of cycling?

The anal sex?

gobnaitolunacy

Oh jesus a motorists vs cyclists thread, like we haven't had one of those before.

Where's the rolly eyes fella when you want him?

Icyseanfitz

thebullkf wrote: »

eh... the constant light breaking, cycling with no lights @ dusk /darkness.

Not the mention the recent upsurge (that i've seen) of cyclists cycling towards you ...on your side of the road... 3 times in last 2 days...

As usual the militant rabid defending by the usual suspects when it comes to a bit of criticism of cyclists. Its no wonder the cycling forum is so poor on this site. Shame really.

not really much danger to anyone but themselves tbh,

as for redlight jumpers/rule breakers well you get that with cars/trucks/peds and just about everything else in life, certain people are idiots unfortunately

thebullkf

BX 19 wrote: »

Start licensing and testing cyclists and watch the numbers of cyclists plummet. I'd have to carry ID going down to the shop for heavens sake. And then what? Have a number plate on my bicycle? No thanks.

And that's a good thing you say? Not really. More cars on the road. More pollution. More early morning traffic jams. More deaths/injuries on the roads. Why? Because cyclists don't kill people on the roads, cars do.

Cycling is something we need to be encouraging. Cuts pollution. Creates a healthier population (which in the long run, reduces the strain on the HSE). Removes cars off the roads which is better for everyone.

people don't kill people... guns do..!!

the risk vs the outcome is whats not in favour of cyclists- thats the issue. Doesn't matter who's in the right or the wrong when you're dead.

Same as Motorcyclists- another killed yesterday

Jawgap

BX 19 wrote: »

Start licensing and testing cyclists and watch the numbers of cyclists plummet. I'd have to carry ID going down to the shop for heavens sake. And then what? Have a number plate on my bicycle? No thanks. .

I for one think it's a brilliant idea and I look forward to the day some seven year old on a BMX 'shoots his way' out of a Garda checkpoint with a super-soaker........"so long coppers"

BX 19 wrote: »

And that's a good thing you say? Not really. More cars on the road. More pollution. More early morning traffic jams. More deaths/injuries on the roads. Why? Because cyclists don't kill people on the roads, cars do.

.......

Cars do not kill people - people kill people. Cars just let people kill people while on the way to work.

Black Leather wrote: »

Speaking as a straight male leisure cyclist, who wears Lycra, I have to dispute your theory that a high proportion of cyclists are gay. Cycling is as masculine a pursuit as one can get. What exactly are the " various other homo erotic aspects " of cycling?

Bitch!

I think this thread severely undermines the masculinity of cycling:D:D:D

thebullkf

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

not really much danger to anyone but themselves tbh,

but if theres an accident the motorist is always partly to blame despite idiocy of some.

as for redlight jumpers/rule breakers well you get that with cars/trucks/peds and just about everything else in life, certain people are idiots unfortunately

nowhere near as prevalent as cyclists - why? because its not enforced/punished coupled with the lack of proper training for people sharing the road with 2 tonne monsters. Sure its easy- tis only cycling ... right?

its that kind of attitude and lack of road awareness thats so dangerous.

Anyone can ride a bike. not anyone can ride a bike safely in conjunction with other road users.

gramar

BX 19 wrote: »

Find me statistics to say that cyclists are at fault more than cars in accidents involving both and I'll donate 10 euro to your favourite charity.

I never said they were the cause of more crashes than cars but they are a cause for more accidents that you would seem to think. Looking at a few different reports cyclists are estimated to be at fault from anywhere between 20 and 60% of accidents. God knows where the true figure lies
but it's not all one way traffic.

Looks like you'll be keeping your 10 euro but I'll donate a tenner to yours if you show me statistics that demonstrate that the number of cyclists would plummet if their was a theory test to pass.

spoofilyj

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

you want to know why cyclists cycle 2 abreast? because idiots in trucks and cars are downright dangerous in this country, even more so on busy roads tbh.

ive had so many idiots pull in in front of me on a hard shoulder while im going at 40-50 km per hour for a chat on the mobile phone, ive had tractors pulling slurry tanks go past me with the tanks open spewing ****e all over me on busy roads, ive had idiots being "big men" swerving into the hard shoulder trying to intimidate/frighten me (which it does when i know i could be killed in the blink of an eye) oh and all the exhaust fumes and ****e ive to inhale on bust roads isnt too nice either

By comparison cycling nice quite backroads has been a much nicer experience in general, probably due to the lack of traffic, also in favor of backroads is the fact that they are a much nicer route to cycle, these are the roads that go up mountains, around lakes etc. as opposed to main roads which are for the most part flat straight and boring, but even on nice quite roads ive had incidents where ive nearly been killed

people who actually race/compete at cycling need a challenge to get fitter and faster, main roads dont offer this for the most part.

if everyone just chilled out a little bit and wasnt in such a rush everywhere this country would be a much nicer place

i think every person going for a full license should have to cycle on the roads for a period of time in order for them to realize how vulnerable cyclists actually are

and il put this up here for good measure

A little off topic but is the woman cyclist in the red jacket at the stop junction, Mary from the shop in Father Ted?

Surveyor11

thebullkf wrote: »

eh... the constant light breaking, cycling with no lights @ dusk /darkness.

I find this concerning when motorists do this - usually with more more catastrophic results. I've had cars overtake, coming against me when on the wrong side of the road when overtaking, showing a complete disregard for my safety.This despite having a very bright front light that is visible from 250m. Does this count?

thebullkf wrote: »

Not the mention the recent upsurge (that i've seen) of cyclists cycling towards you ...on your side of the road... 3 times in last 2 days...

If you ignore the Rules of the Road as a cyclist and travel down a way street against the flow of traffic, probably not the wisest thing to do. Mind you, in some other European countries this is legal so perhaps a progressive move would be to permit cyclists to do this here?

One way streets are usually imposed on motorists to prevent traffic issues, such as rat runs, traffic jams etc. Cyclists don't cause traffic jams.

thebullkf wrote: »

As usual the militant rabid defending by the usual suspects when it comes to a bit of criticism of cyclists. Its no wonder the cycling forum is so poor on this site. Shame really.

the impact on a cyclists of being hit by a one tonne plus vehicle travelling at speed are usually more severe than the opposite scenario. Also, most people who complain about cyclists aren't cyclists themselves and see the roads are solely there for the disposal of car drivers. It's not as simple as that - we all need to share the road (where permitted to do so) and exercise a bit of common decency towards other road users, , this includes cyclists, cars, horses, runners, walkers etc and understand the vulnerabilities of each.

Icyseanfitz

thebullkf wrote: »

but if theres an accident the motorist is always partly to blame despite idiocy of some.

nowhere near as prevalent as cyclists - why? because its not enforced/punished coupled with the lack of proper training for people sharing the road with 2 tonne monsters. Sure its easy- tis only cycling ... right?

its that kind of attitude and lack of road awareness thats so dangerous.

Anyone can ride a bike. not anyone can ride a bike safely in conjunction with other road users.

BS, link me some figures then? as for motorists getting the blame in an accident, thats nicer than dying right

Icyseanfitz

Jawgap wrote: »

I for one think it's a brilliant idea and I look forward to the day some seven year old on a BMX 'shoots his way' out of a Garda checkpoint with a super-soaker........"so long coppers"

Cars do not kill people - people kill people. Cars just let people kill people while on the way to work.

Bitch!

I think this thread severely undermines the masculinity of cycling:D:D:D

sagan is above sexual preference, every known life form would jump on that :pac:

glic71rods46t0

Surveyor11 wrote: »

Cyclists don't cause traffic jams.

Read the first post on this tread

Jawgap

gramar wrote: »

I never said they were the cause of more crashes than cars but they are a cause for more accidents that you would seem to think. Looking at a few different reports cyclists are estimated to be at fault from anywhere between 20 and 60% of accidents. God knows where the true figure lies
but it's not all one way traffic.

Looks like you'll be keeping your 10 euro but I'll donate a tenner to yours if you show me statistics that demonstrate that the number of cyclists would plummet if their was a theory test to pass.

Which reports were you looking at and can you post a link?

The RSA stats don't seem to support your figures nor does the Health Atlas Ireland site

Surveyor11

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

sagan is above sexual preference, every known life form would jump on that :pac:

Yes, agree. A man crush on Sagan is nothing to be ashamed of.:cool:

thebullkf

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

BS, link me some figures then? as for motorists getting the blame in an accident, thats nicer than dying right

i'm talking from experience and anecdotal evidence. Which is small sample granted but having a licence in 3 different categories and a keen cyclist myself i feel its ok to say- you obviously don't agree. Having spent over 20 years traversing this city and country (to alesser extent) it has improved, both standards of driving and cycling.

to be honest i cannot remmber the last time i saw a red light jumper in a car ( have seen a few where is amber and they turn etc) but every. single. day. i see cyclists breaking red lights. every day. they onviously think they are bullet proof.

To be fair the standard of driving in this country is shocking, but also by extension is the level of cycling.

Attitude is key.

[Deleted User]

if we could start with a ban on those tight motha'f***** pants the men wear id be happy. Those vile pants that show of every crack,lump and bump.. enough to make ye throw up in yer mouth. Heinous crime against taste.:eek:

So lets ban frog men pants for men.

laoch na mona

i cycle a bit for fun and practicality. i go as far from the hard shoulder as possible so so idiot doesn't push me onto the ditch if i am holding someone up i will pull in when i can.

to many drivers on back roads disregard cyclists
however cyclists in towns are insane the majority ignore traffic lights or the rules of the road in general

thebullkf

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

BS, link me some figures then? as for motorists getting the blame in an accident, thats nicer than dying right

is that a statement or a question?

so you think its ok for a motorist to get the blame for youre actions .. cos its better than dying...???

gramar

BX 19 wrote: »

Find me statistics to say that cyclists are at fault more than cars in accidents involving both and I'll donate 10 euro to your favourite charity.

A study published this year:
"The study, presented to the Minneapolis City Council on January 15, analyzed 10 years of bike versus car crash data. The research found that in 64 percent of these, investigators determined that the driver was at fault. In 59 percent of collisions between a car and a bicycle, the cyclist was at fault. In many cases, investigators found both to be at fault.
The researchers found that there were certain driving and cycling behaviors that were likely to result in a collision. For motorists, failure to yield to bikes and failure to pay attention to them were factors in crashes. For bicyclists, ignoring signs, traffic signals and lane markings often were precursors to collisions, as was riding in unpredictable ways"

Icyseanfitz

Jake1 wrote: »

if we could start with a ban on those tight motha'f***** pants the men wear id be happy. Those vile pants that show of every crack,lump and bump.. enough to make ye throw up in yer mouth. Heinous crime against taste.:eek:

So lets ban frog men pants for men.

go for a 100k cycle in a pair of football shorts and report back

fyi those lycra shorts have very good ass padding

VinLieger

gramar wrote: »

A study published this year:
"The study, presented to the Minneapolis City Council on January 15, analyzed 10 years of bike versus car crash data. The research found that in 64 percent of these, investigators determined that the driver was at fault. In 59 percent of collisions between a car and a bicycle, the cyclist was at fault. In many cases, investigators found both to be at fault.
The researchers found that there were certain driving and cycling behaviors that were likely to result in a collision. For motorists, failure to yield to bikes and failure to pay attention to them were factors in crashes. For bicyclists, ignoring signs, traffic signals and lane markings often were precursors to collisions, as was riding in unpredictable ways"

Gonna go out on a limb here but guessing people arent gonna accept a US study