Cyclists mega-thread (WARNING: Before posting you must read post #1)

No Pants · 26-05-2014 02:45PM

SeanW wrote: »

I'm not sure what one way roads you are on, but only once in my entire lifetime have I seen a motorist driving the wrong way down a one way street. As a pedestrian, it is simply not something that I consider it necessary to be concerned with, nor something that I plan for or expect on a day to day basis.
Cyclists on the other hand ...

I've seen it too often to count. Not in Dublin mind, most were in Monaghan, with some in Carlow and Portadown, centre of law and order that it is.

Tenzor07 · 26-05-2014 02:45PM

paddyland wrote: »

Motorcyclistsin full yellow warrior outfit storming through traffic light junctions and pedestrian crossings at full pelt when everyone else is stopped for one thing.

Taxi drivers who race to get into a narrow bus lane in front of a bus, and then stop moving, is another thing.

Horses going far too fast on public park footpaths and forest trails, where there are pedestrians, children, slow cyclists and dogs about.

School run MPV drivers who do not leave adequate space between themselves and pedestrian and other traffic, despite admonishing everyone else for not leaving them space.

Boy-Racers who practice militant hypocrisy, loudly remonstrating against anyone who they feel infringes on their divine right to drive as they please, but rubbish anyone who suggests there might be occasions when they should consider others.

Farmers in Tractors who travel in long lines and packs on busy country roads, leaving no possibility to safely overtake, and allowing long queues of traffic build up behind, until a hazardous situation develops where somebody does decide to overtake dangerously, and put everyone at risk. It is unfair, for example, to hold up traffic for miles on winding country roads such as the Roundwood road. Spread out, and let traffic pass when it is safe to do so. If you don't let them pass when it is safe, then someone will try to pass when it isn't safe.

The same elderly car drivers who pace along at 15-20kph in a long line on a country road, will then storm through a narrow village, where there are pedestrians, parked cars, and all kinds of distraction about. Elderly drivers find it sometimes hard to see. Your speed should be in relation to your ability to be seen, and to avoid and be avoided.
.

Fixed that for you.. So you see it's all relative.. but don't let that stand in the way of a good Rant! :rolleyes:

Spook_ie · 26-05-2014 02:47PM

No Pants wrote: »

Here's a handy cheat sheet.

Militants Not breaking the law assuming they are in somewhere like Afghanistan

Not militants Breaking the law by cycling more than 2 abreast and obstructing the road

Let me know if you'd like to go over that again.

FYP

CramCycle · 26-05-2014 02:49PM

endacl wrote: »

A red beard. Most likely a commie too.

I am not a communist, haven't paid my dues this year yet.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Try running a second motor car on the road on the assumption that you've paid tax already on the car in the driveway and see how far it gets you in the excuse department.

Considering the number of cars that are english plated but have been driving in and out of my workplaces car park for over a year, alongside the number of cars that just simply have not paid (regardless of the SORN system). I don't think an excuse is necessary, apparently it only matters if there is a checkpoint and I have come across so few of them in my time in Dublin that my car would have paid for itself 10 times over if i never paid road tax. Not only does my motor tax contribute to the general tax pool, so does my USC, my PAYE, my VAT etc. All of which I see sapped away on councils repairing roads that do not need repair at the end of the fiscal year to use up the money in case it is not issued again.

Oink · 26-05-2014 02:50PM

SeanW wrote: »

Cyclists on the other hand ...

Depends which hand you're talking about.

No Pants · 26-05-2014 02:50PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

cycling more than 2 abreast

Quite an assumption you've made there.

Spook_ie wrote: »

obstructing the road

In rather the same way that a car would if using the same road. Are you saying that it's illegal for a car to be using that road?

A Neurotic · 26-05-2014 02:50PM

Hi. I've only read the first few posts in this thread and now I feel the need to rant about road users in general. Apologies for vague off-topicness.

No point in differentiating based on what kind of vehicle they're using - some people are just idiots with no idea how to share a road.

In the last couple of weeks in Dublin, I've had at least 3 motorists cut across my lane or pull to a halt right in the cycle lane, forcing me to suddenly stop to avoid collision;

Numerous pedestrians happily step right onto the road without even glancing to the right. They seem to think that if there are no cars audibly approaching, turning their necks a few degrees to check for other traffic is just too much bother. Traffic was backed up at a junction around Thomas St earlier today, I was zipping by towards a nice green light but had to stop for an idiot woman dragging her son across the street without looking.

I was walking on the footpath on Emmet Rd recently, two abreast with a friend, carrying a large pizza box and a bag of groceries. A scrotebag cyclist sped right by me on the path, from behind. And then he had the gall to scold me, saying that he could have knocked the pizza out of my hands! I pointed out that he had a road while we had the path, and he just replied "road's for cars!" as he cycled off. Absolutely unbelievable.

Rant over. Back to topic - rar rar cyclists rar etc.

CramCycle · 26-05-2014 02:53PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

FYP

Its a laneway, there is no vehicle that you can use on that road that does not obstruct oncoming traffic to some degree, unless of course, those men are in fact 12 foot tall and on giant bicycles, in which case I apologise, they are clearly obstructing the road, not laneway.

wrt40 · 26-05-2014 02:55PM

@Paddyland, spot on with everything you have said.

I'm a cyclist but I'm also a driver. Why do cyclists always assume drivers don't cycle? That it's us versus them? Lets face it, the vast majority of cyclists have an attitude problem. And yes, I can make a sweeping general statement like that because its a fact, period, no arguing about it. Being a cyclist myself I just accept that this is true. All cyclists should have to take lessons and pass a test on how not be a dick head on the road. It'll make everyone's journey a lot more pleasant, mainly their own. And lycra should be banned. You might as well be wearing a sign on your back saying "dick head up ahead".

RobbieTheRobber · 26-05-2014 02:55PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

FYP

I cant see which cyclist is cycling two abreast the first three seem to be single file and after that i cant make out if any are cycling two abreast.

Also you can cycle more than two abreast when overtaking, so even if we did know that there were three abreast we would need more than that photo to be able to identify any law breaking.

Oink · 26-05-2014 02:57PM

A Neurotic wrote: »

Apologies for vague off-topicness.

Au contraire mon frere. You off-topicness is quite welcome. No Pants done broke OP anyway:

paddyland wrote: »

Now go on and have your little huff, as I am signing out.

So now we’re just throwing generalizations around for a laugh:

wrt40 wrote: »

Lets face it, the vast majority of cyclists have an attitude problem. .

No Pants · 26-05-2014 02:57PM

CramCycle wrote: »

on giant bicycles

I wish I'd known, I never would have bought that Cube...

Tenzor07 · 26-05-2014 02:59PM

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I cant see which cyclist is cycling two abreast the first three seem to be single file and after that i cant make out if any are cycling two abreast.
Also you can cycle more than two abreast when overtaking, so even if we did know that there were three abreast we would need more than that photo to be able to identify any law breaking.

So why are the cyclists here not all in cuff's?

Well....

They appear to have numbers on the handlebars so it's safe to assume that local Gardai have been informed of an event, signs and marshals have been posted along the route and local residents out cheering them on...

No Pants · 26-05-2014 03:00PM

wrt40 wrote: »

And yes, I can make a sweeping general statement like that because its a fact, period, no arguing about it.

That's the funniest thing I've read all day.

CramCycle · 26-05-2014 03:01PM

wrt40 wrote: »

I'm a cyclist but I'm also a driver. Why do cyclists always assume drivers don't cycle?

So far the majority of cyclists on this thread have identified themselves as motor tax paying cyclists so not sure what your point is.

That it's us versus them? Lets face it, the vast majority of cyclists have an attitude problem. And yes, I can make a sweeping general statement like that because its a fact, period, no arguing about it.

I suggest you relax, take a deep breath and have a google about what the word fact means because I fear you don't actually know.

Being a cyclist myself I just accept that this is true. All cyclists should have to take lessons and pass a test on how not be a dick head on the road. It'll make everyone's journey a lot more pleasant, mainly their own. And lycra should be banned. You might as well be wearing a sign on your back saying "dick head up ahead".

To be fair if the driving test proved anything its that taking a test will not stop someone being a d*ck, not being a d*ck is about the only way to solve being a d*ck.

Some d*cks are cyclists, some are peds, some are motor vehicle users and some are a mixture of the 3. What i am trying to say, if its not clear, is that a small subset of the Irish population are d*cks. It seems like a large % but its not really, its just that we tend to remember when a d*ck gets in our face as we go about our daily lives and forget about those who had no affect on us whatsoever, which is a pity.

CramCycle · 26-05-2014 03:03PM

No Pants wrote: »

I wish I'd known, I never would have bought that Cube...

LOL, Cubes look nicer

wrt40 · 26-05-2014 03:03PM

Oink wrote: »

So now we’re just throwing generalizations around for a laugh:

Generalisation or popular opinion? The reasons have already been pointed out on this thread I don't see the need to repeat them.

Spook_ie · 26-05-2014 03:10PM

CramCycle wrote: »

I am not a communist, haven't paid my dues this year yet.

Considering the number of cars that are english plated but have been driving in and out of my workplaces car park for over a year, alongside the number of cars that just simply have not paid (regardless of the SORN system). I don't think an excuse is necessary, apparently it only matters if there is a checkpoint and I have come across so few of them in my time in Dublin that my car would have paid for itself 10 times over if i never paid road tax. Not only does my motor tax contribute to the general tax pool, so does my USC, my PAYE, my VAT etc. All of which I see sapped away on councils repairing roads that do not need repair at the end of the fiscal year to use up the money in case it is not issued again.

Cars not being taxed or being English registered is a matter for the GS Customs and Excise, it still doesn't give you the right to use a second vehicle on the road with out the requisite tax, therefore please cyclists stop using the excuse " I've paid motor/road tax it's on the car parked in my driveway"

As to the USC/PAYE etc. being spent by councils they also spend their apportion of LGF which is made up of the entire contribution of motortax minus admin costs therefore motortax (AGAIN) is defacto a more DIRECT road tax than your USC/PAYE etc. plus ( for those who complain about engines ) every €1 that a motorist spends on fuel ( 2012 figures ) then somewhere around 55c goes in taxation, as you wouldn't tend to use fuel unless you are actually driving then again the motorist is paying MORE defacto ROAD TAX

CramCycle · 26-05-2014 03:13PM

wrt40 wrote: »

Generalisation or popular opinion? The reasons have already been pointed out on this thread I don't see the need to repeat them.

I see you googled fact and have now changed it to opinion. Next google generalisation. Actually, LMGTFY, :

a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases.

As in, you have a very small subset of examples or memories in your head and you have decided that this is a reasonable amount of examples to infer characteristics upon a huge number of people who you do not know and will probably never meet or see. So I suppose the next question is, can you justify your generalisation about the attitude of cyclists (which I am presuming you mean in a negative connotation as I am certain everyone has an attitude)?

Oink · 26-05-2014 03:15PM

wrt40 wrote: »

Generalisation or popular opinion? The reasons have already been pointed out on this thread I don't see the need to repeat them.

Ah but you see, this thread is about "Why do we tolerate them on our roads."
=> presumably OP is suggesting a change in law

Your suggestion is that the "All cyclists should have to take lessons"
=> You are suggesting mandatory training

Based on what?
=> “popular opinion”

So yeah, the whole premise is flaky.

Spook_ie · 26-05-2014 03:17PM

No Pants wrote: »

Quite an assumption you've made there.

In rather the same way that a car would if using the same road. Are you saying that it's illegal for a car to be using that road?

No assumption there, a picture paints a 1000 words cyclists are cycling more than 2 abreast, even if they were trackstanding they would still be obstructing the road.

No but it would be illegal (as well as inadvisable ) for a car to be more than 1 abreast on that road, just because the cyclists ARE breaking the law no need to start trying to obfuscate the post by intimating that a motorist is breaking the law by being on the road when they wouldn't

wrt40 · 26-05-2014 03:17PM

CramCycle wrote: »

I suggest you relax, take a deep breath and have a google about what the word fact means because I fear you don't actually know.

Perfectly relaxed. It's a fact because the majority of the population say so. Are you suggesting I need some sort of scientific evidence to prove my point?

CramCycle wrote: »

Some d*cks are cyclists, some are peds, some are motor vehicle users and some are a mixture of the 3.

Of course dick heads can be classified in all manner of ways. but I am specifically talking about cyclists. There is also strong correlation between being a cyclist and being a dick head.

Putting my cycling hat on (sorry), I'd say its because of the god awful state of Irish roads, both the physical degradation and the awful design and layout. When a motorist gets stressed he'll usually curse and shout in the privacy of his car, occasionally it manifests as road rage. When a cyclist gets stressed its on public display.

wrt40 · 26-05-2014 03:20PM

CramCycle wrote: »

I see you googled fact and have now changed it to opinion. Next google generalisation. Actually, LMGTFY, :

arf arf its so funny lols LMAO....point proven.

No Pants · 26-05-2014 03:21PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

No assumption there, a picture paints a 1000 words cyclists are cycling more than 2 abreast

Where?

wrt40 · 26-05-2014 03:23PM

No Pants wrote: »

Where?

come off it now.

CramCycle · 26-05-2014 03:23PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Cars not being taxed or being English registered is a matter for the GS Customs and Excise, it still doesn't give you the right to use a second vehicle on the road with out the requisite tax, therefore please cyclists stop using the excuse " I've paid motor/road tax it's on the car parked in my driveway"

As to the USC/PAYE etc. being spent by councils they also spend their apportion of LGF which is made up of the entire contribution of motortax minus admin costs therefore motortax (AGAIN) is defacto a more DIRECT road tax than your USC/PAYE etc. plus ( for those who complain about engines ) every €1 that a motorist spends on fuel ( 2012 figures ) then somewhere around 55c goes in taxation, as you wouldn't tend to use fuel unless you are actually driving then again the motorist is paying MORE defacto ROAD TAX

Ah spook.ie, the flaw with your logic has become apparent, my right to use the road is the same as yours. It is born from legal grounds set up by the state. If their was a tax on cycling, I would pay it but there is not so I cannot see why you are annoyed, my bicycle does far less damage to the roads which is what you think motor tax is their to alleviate ie the cost of maintaining roads. If you took the cost of admining a cycling tax away from the fair cost of damage done by a single cyclist to the roads, then you would find that the government would probably owe most cyclists money. Therefore to save money, they don't do it. Regardless of this, you are also forgetting the issues with Public Health. The govenment have a responsibilty not to put barriers up to the general public in regards to things that in the long run will be beneficial to the general health of the populace. If a tax was introduced, the number of cyclist would plummet, making the tax even more costly to administer but also increasing the strain on the public health service in years to come.

But forget that, make a suggestion, that is not ridiculous, does not affect public health and does not cost more to the government than it can ever hope to generate in regards cycling and then maybe we can have a reasonable conversation.

But lets not even go into emmissions, traffic jams, obesity, lets only focus on a tax that does not even cover what you claim it covers and try and think of a way to impose it on a group of people who by their daily routine save the government money in the long run by not paying a tax you wish to introduce.

Spook_ie · 26-05-2014 03:26PM

No Pants wrote: »

Where?

In the peloton, we've already deduced that it is an organised group ( based on the numbers on the cycles ) therefore the likihood of it being a timed event is increased exponentaly and the existance of a peloton also thus increased.

You do little to enhance your arguments by denying the ( to any reasonable person, a judge and jury are not always reasonable which is why I wouldn't be looking for the GS to prosecute anyone ) obvious

No Pants · 26-05-2014 03:28PM

wrt40 wrote: »

come off it now.

Cyclists are allowed to cycle two abreast. Cyclists are even allowed to cycle three abreast, as long as the third cyclist is overtaking the other two. That photo shows a group of cyclists, but if you look carefully you'll notice that very few of them are actually alongside another cyclist. They're quite staggered.

CramCycle · 26-05-2014 03:31PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

No assumption there, a picture paints a 1000 words cyclists are cycling more than 2 abreast, even if they were trackstanding they would still be obstructing the road.

It is a LANEWAY, if a car was driving on it, by definition, they would be obstructing it. Same with cyclist, if there was only one cyclist, he would still be obstructing it.

No but it would be illegal (as well as inadvisable ) for a car to be more than 1 abreast on that road,t

Actually it would be borderline impossible and incredibly dangerous to try.

wrt40 wrote: »

Perfectly relaxed. It's a fact because the majority of the population say so. Are you suggesting I need some sort of scientific evidence to prove my point?

Are you saying that if someone went looking they could not find a cyclist who is not a d*ck.

Of course dick heads can be classified in all manner of ways. but I am specifically talking about cyclists. There is also strong correlation between being a cyclist and being a dick head.

Putting my cycling hat on (sorry),

Just because you have seen lots of d*ck heads and you yourself are or at least have been one (your words, not mine) does not mean all cyclists are d*ckheads.

When a cyclist gets stressed its on public display.

I don't understand this last point? Are you saying everyone who uses a vehicle is a d*ckhead, its just easier to see with cyclists?

Spook_ie · 26-05-2014 03:33PM

CramCycle wrote: »

Ah spook.ie, the flaw with your logic has become apparent, my right to use the road is the same as yours. It is born from legal grounds set up by the state. If their was a tax on cycling, I would pay it but there is not so I cannot see why you are annoyed, my bicycle does far less damage to the roads which is what you think motor tax is their to alleviate ie the cost of maintaining roads. If you took the cost of admining a cycling tax away from the fair cost of damage done by a single cyclist to the roads, then you would find that the government would probably owe most cyclists money. Therefore to save money, they don't do it. Regardless of this, you are also forgetting the issues with Public Health. The govenment have a responsibilty not to put barriers up to the general public in regards to things that in the long run will be beneficial to the general health of the populace. If a tax was introduced, the number of cyclist would plummet, making the tax even more costly to administer but also increasing the strain on the public health service in years to come.

But forget that, make a suggestion, that is not ridiculous, does not affect public health and does not cost more to the government than it can ever hope to generate in regards cycling and then maybe we can have a reasonable conversation.

But lets not even go into emmissions, traffic jams, obesity, lets only focus on a tax that does not even cover what you claim it covers and try and think of a way to impose it on a group of people who by their daily routine save the government money in the long run by not paying a tax you wish to introduce.

My logic isn't flawed at all, it is to debunk the oft perpetrated myth that cyclists trot out in these threads that they pay tax on their vehicles in the driveway therefore they are contributing ( in some glory seeking way without actually using the vehicle ) if that's the case then dispose of the vehicle and pay your motortax over in some other indirect taxation but don't use the feeblest of excuses about " I pay motor/road tax"

Cyclists mega-thread (WARNING: Before posting you must read post #1)

Comments