Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Those damn cyclists again!

1…2324262829…43

Comments

  • #752
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    blackwhite wrote: »
    No - the insurance company will often pay out if the cost to settle is less than the expected cost to defend the claim.

    Insurance companies will often assess that it is cheaper to pay someone to bugger off than to incur solicitor costs to defend an action, and risk not being awarded or not being able to recover costs.

    I think that point has already been made but some people seem to equate an insurance company paying out with the attachment of liability.


  • #753
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    AntiVirus wrote: »
    I also think cyclist should be fined for cycling with no lights at dusk or at night time and also for not wearing a helmet. I know its not popular with some cyclists here but that's how it should be.
    Have you bothered to read up about helmets.

    Thanks be to christ the likes of Andrew Monatgue does not agree with commonly ignorantly held presumtion. There were calls for mandatory helments before and they it rightfully did not happen. Even most of the strongly pro-helemt wearers are against it being mandatory.

    Mandatory helmets for pedestrians while above the legal limit to drive are a far more sensible proposition.


  • #754
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,501 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Jawgap wrote: »
    ....and thanks for posting the link to this case maybe some other posters who made statements regarding similarly serious incidents can do likewise ;)

    TBH, I don't think it's fair to be asking someone to post a link to any report where they themselves could be named as a witness, and have their RL name/details revealed.


  • #755
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Good question, as a lot of cyclists have more than one bike it would need to be on the basis of per person, which means it can be associated with also requiring a license to cycle, no license, no tax, no high viz with a registration on it, no use of the roads. No longer cycling surrender the high viz
    Now set the license age to the age of criminal responsibility and allow those under it to cycle under supervision while they learn about using roads

    So the guy who owns five high end road bikes pays the same as the student on the clunker........that's hardly 'equitable' from someone with a declared preference for equitable taxation......


  • #756
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,780 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Good question, as a lot of cyclists have more than one bike it would need to be on the basis of per person, which means it can be associated with also requiring a license to cycle, no license, no tax, no high viz with a registration on it, no use of the roads. No longer cycling surrender the high viz
    Now set the license age to the age of criminal responsibility and allow those under it to cycle under supervision while they learn about using roads

    All sounds great. So what happens when my 10 year old wants to cycle to school. Do I have to supervise him? Or does he have to apply for his own licence?

    Again any examples of where this works in the world would be useful for some context.


  • Advertisement
  • #757
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    blackwhite wrote: »
    TBH, I don't think it's fair to be asking someone to post a link to any report where they themselves could be named as a witness, and have their RL name/details revealed.

    You really think that story about the cyclist being 100% responsible is true?


  • #758
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,501 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Jawgap wrote: »
    I think that point has already been made but some people seem to equate an insurance company paying out with the attachment of liability.

    For the impact on the motorist's insurance, and in terms of who actually ends up being left financially responsible for the consequences, the effect is exactly the same as if liability had been attached.


  • #759
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,203 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Good question, as a lot of cyclists have more than one bike it would need to be on the basis of per person, which means it can be associated with also requiring a license to cycle, no license, no tax, no high viz with a registration on it, no use of the roads. No longer cycling surrender the high viz
    Now set the license age to the age of criminal responsibility and allow those under it to cycle under supervision while they learn about using roads

    Have you considered the cost to setup an agency to deal with bike registration and its ongoing operating costs?

    Only allowing those under age to cycle with supervision :D
    So I couldn't let my child play on their bike in a safe area unless under the supervision of someone with a registered Hi-Viz?
    :D

    What about tourists entering the country, would there be a waiver to allow them to rent bikes for you know tourist reasons?

    What about fake hi-viz how do we counter this do we use our already stretched garda resources on the arresting of people who are criminally cycling around the country harming no one?

    Do we setup a border patrol to ensure no unregistered Northern Irish cyclists breach the border?

    Will this registration only apply to bicycles?
    Can i cycle a unicycle or tricycle without my registered hi viz?

    Most self proclaimed free speech absolutists are giant big whiny snowflakes!



  • #760
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,501 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    Jawgap wrote: »
    You really think that story about the cyclist being 100% responsible is true?

    Not particularly, but I never said that I did. Please don't put words in my (or anyone else's) mouth - it's something that adds anything to a reasonable debate


  • #761
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,428 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Jawgap wrote: »
    So the guy who owns five high end road bikes pays the same as the student on the clunker........that's hardly 'equitable' from someone with a declared preference for equitable taxation......
    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    All sounds great. So what happens when my 10 year old wants to cycle to school. Do I have to supervise him? Or does he have to apply for his own licence?

    Again any examples of where this works in the world would be useful for some context.

    Dunno why you'd reply to this pointless debate about taxing bicyclists when the basic fact/truth is that Bicyclists should never be taxed to use a bike, and will never be taxed to use a bike.. It's in no one's interest to tax a cyclist, save for the minority of idiots who want to get rid of it off the roads etc......

    there is not a single point which will convince any normal person of the need for a bicyclist tax..

    End of debate...


  • Advertisement
  • #762
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,040 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Good question, as a lot of cyclists have more than one bike it would need to be on the basis of per person, which means it can be associated with also requiring a license to cycle, no license, no tax, no high viz with a registration on it, no use of the roads. No longer cycling surrender the high viz
    Now set the license age to the age of criminal responsibility and allow those under it to cycle under supervision while they learn about using roads
    So when I popped down to my mates house at age 10, my parents would have to accompany me? Have you put any real thought into this idea. When I went to the shop at age 7 to get my dads paper, he would have to come with me? A license, great idea, another money hole, considering the poor standard of some licensed motorists, I can't see any benefit of this bar costing the state money, putting people off cycling and overall being a negative.

    Hell a hi vis with a reg, cause no one will ever just make fake ones.

    If your going to suggest ridiculous things try not to make them so laughably idiotic.


  • #763
    AntiVirus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,395 ✭✭✭AntiVirus


    rubadub wrote: »
    Have you bothered to read up about helmets.

    Yes, they save lives. If it weren't for helmets my friends son probably wouldn't be around today. He was made to wear one by his mum. I suppose you think he would have been better off not wear one?


  • #764
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,203 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    AntiVirus wrote: »
    Yes, they save lives. If it weren't for helmets my friends son probably wouldn't be around today. He was made to wear one by his mum. I suppose you think he would have been better off not wear one?

    Is there really any activity people partake in which wouldnt have reduced occurrences of head injuries if people wore helmets during them?

    So shouldn't we all just wear helmets and padding all the time?

    Most self proclaimed free speech absolutists are giant big whiny snowflakes!



  • #765
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    blackwhite wrote: »
    Not particularly, but I never said that I did. Please don't put words in my (or anyone else's) mouth - it's something that adds anything to a reasonable debate

    Sorry, my intention was not to put words in your mouth.

    Originally someone made a rather ridiculous suggestion about an incident they had witnessed - and made it sound very serious in an attempt to make it sound convincing but the story was pretty thin so I called them on it.

    How about the poster in question calls up the story in question and posts a screen shot of it, with any identifying information redacted?

    I've no problem apologising if I'm wrong.


  • #766
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,040 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    AntiVirus wrote: »
    Yes, they save lives. If it weren't for helmets my friends son probably wouldn't be around today. He was made to wear one by his mum. I suppose you think he would have been better off not wear one?

    He could have been, you cannot say for certain, the human body is incredible in its reactions to accidents. There is a great thread over in the cycling forum on helmets, look at the last few pages on the stats on helmet wearing and then come back.

    Helmets are not a legal requirement, nor are they likely to be in the foreseeable future for many reasons.

    Wear one if you want, don't wear one if you don't want too.


  • #767
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    cournioni wrote: »
    . In my experience a larger percentage of cyclists are prone to break than motorists.
    Of course they do, this makes perfect sense, and in turn a larger perventage of pedestrians are prone to breaking the law than cyclists. This also makes sense. The same person who would never dream of breaking a light in a car might do so on a bike, and might not give it a second thought while on foot.

    Its quite disturbing to think that people are out there who cannot accept and/or realise why this is the case, really puts the ****s up me to think of people of such a diminished mental capacity might be behind the wheel of a car.
    cournioni wrote: »
    I believe that quite a large percentage of cyclists believe that the rules of the road do not apply to them. A much larger percentage than motorists anyway.
    I think they are prefectly aware that the rules apply to them, but break them anyway. This is what you probably meant, but I am not just being pedantic for the sake of it -the fact is a hell of a lot of pedestrians out there are unaware of the laws they are breaking, and do not even know they are doing anything wrong. So they do not even know the laws to begin with, and presumably many own bike & cars.

    I was in dublin city centre in the evening a few months ago and saw people blatantly breaking the law and jaywalking dangerously infront of cars while I and about 4-5 gardai stood at the lights waiting, the gardai did nothing. The jaywalkers probably did not even know they were breaking the law. Whenever I mention jaywalking in threads here more often that not a poster comes along and tells me I am talking nonsense and that there are no jaywalking type laws here -this just proves how bad its gotten.

    I see cyclists breaking lights all the time, most do it in a reasonable and sensible manner, just like cars I see breaking lights, and just like pedestrians I see breaking lights.

    This morning I broke a red light on the N11, there was a traffic corps garda on a motorbike right beside me. He did not stop me just as I expected, he presumably knew why I was doing it. I often break lights at this stop which is about 100m from a garda station, numerous gardai have seen me breaking lights, a few even gave a nod of approval/recognition as to what I was doing. They must understand why I was doing it and are not pedantic letter of the law gobshites which many here would seemingly like them to be. I fear my own life more than the courts.


  • #768
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,428 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    AntiVirus wrote: »
    Yes, they save lives. If it weren't for helmets my friends son probably wouldn't be around today. He was made to wear one by his mum. I suppose you think he would have been better off not wear one?

    We all know someones mothers, brothers, uncles, cousin's mate who something happened to them to justify any point...

    But...like taxing something off the roads, compulsory helmet wearing is another thinly veiled agenda to make cycling less accessible and or attractive/acceptable to the general public..

    So take your argument here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057030568 if you have an actual genuine concern...


  • #769
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    AntiVirus wrote: »
    Yes, they save lives. If it weren't for helmets my friends son probably wouldn't be around today. He was made to wear one by his mum. I suppose you think he would have been better off not wear one?

    I think this post has just guaranteed this thread will run for another 50 or so pages.......


  • #770
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,276 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    Is there really any activity people partake in which wouldnt have reduced occurrences of head injuries if people wore helmets during them?

    So shouldn't we all just wear helmets and padding all the time?

    Ah hear, let's not consider the logical consequences of our arguments. Where would threads like this be if we did?


  • #771
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,040 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    Is there really any activity people partake in which wouldnt have reduced occurrences of head injuries if people wore helmets during them?

    So shouldn't we all just wear helmets and padding all the time?

    Recent studies have shown that head injuries in motoring collisions would be significantly reduced if people wore helmets while in a car. Yet no one is asking for that.


  • Advertisement
  • #772
    Pinch Flat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,780 ✭✭✭Pinch Flat


    Tenzor07 wrote: »
    The obsession with Tax.. Tax.. and more tax goes on!

    Taxochism. Spooks probably the very man who moans to a passenger about the water charges as well.

    "Them cyclists, they should be taxed to the hilt. Have hexidecimal numbers tattooed on their foreheads. And die them hi-vis so we can see them.

    But those bleedin' water charges, don't get me started".


  • #773
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,893 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    AntiVirus wrote: »
    Yes, they save lives. If it weren't for helmets my friends son probably wouldn't be around today. He was made to wear one by his mum. I suppose you think he would have been better off not wear one?
    it seems to be a topic you don't know a lot about. evidence from territories where bike helmets have been made mandatory is mixed, and one suggestion is that people who *choose* to wear helmets benefit, but people who are forced to wear helmets suffer because people do not understand the situations in which a helmet would benefit.

    also, i have read that the melbourne free bikes scheme (in a city roughly the same size as dublin) has been a disaster as the mandatory helmets rule means that no-one wants to use them, as it means having to carry a bike helmet round all day.


  • #774
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,428 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    Pinch Flat wrote: »
    Taxochism. Spooks probably the very man who moans to a passenger about the water charges as well.

    "Them cyclists, they should be taxed to the hilt. Have hexidecimal numbers tattooed on their foreheads. And die them hi-vis so we can see them.

    But those bleedin' water charges, don't get me started".

    I heard rumors of a "Garth Brooks tax" to make up for the loss of €50million to the economy! :pac: :D


  • #775
    rubadub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,388 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    AntiVirus wrote: »
    Yes, they save lives. If it weren't for helmets my friends son probably wouldn't be around today. He was made to wear one by his mum. I suppose you think he would have been better off not wear one?
    Right, so you obviously haven't read any, as you are trotting out the same cringeworthy emotive shite that is spewed in all threads about cycling helmets :rolleyes:

    And yes, he certainly might have been better off without one, if you had read up about the pros & cons of helmets you would realise why.

    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    Is there really any activity people partake in which wouldnt have reduced occurrences of head injuries if people wore helmets during them?
    Helmets can cause worse injuries in some cases.

    a few sites about bike helmets
    http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
    http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=205323&sectioncode=26
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18481926?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16019398?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum


    And a pro site
    http://www.helmets.org/


  • #776
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,428 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    the mandatory helmets rule means that no-one wants to use them, as it means having to carry a bike helmet round all day.

    My point exactly.. Like the "Uhh lets Tax it out of existence..."


  • #777
    jimgoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,204 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    CramCycle wrote: »
    Recent studies have shown that head injuries in motoring collisions would be significantly reduced if people wore helmets while in a car. Yet no one is asking for that.

    No! No-one is asking for that is right, as most people I see driving cars every day will scarcely look around them as it is! :pac:

    So, assuming people are clamped properly into their seats by functioning seat-belts, as they should be, helmets in cars would cause more issues than they'd solve, I expect.


  • #778
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Just wear your helmet - you know it makes sense :D

    Put the helmets where they are needed


  • #779
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,537 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    CramCycle wrote: »
    putting people off cycling

    would be a good thing for our towns and cities, driving out infront of busses or up beside moving busses trying to pass them out causing the driver to break hard or swerve to avoid them, they are a dangerous nucence that needs to be banned in our towns and cities

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #780
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,893 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    oh dear.


  • Advertisement
  • #781
    Tenzor07
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,428 ✭✭✭Tenzor07


    end of the road wrote: »
    would be a good thing for our towns and cities, driving out infront of busses or up beside moving busses trying to pass them out causing the driver to break hard or swerve to avoid them, they are a dangerous nucence that needs to be banned in our towns and cities

    LOL! :D


Advertisement