ezra_pound wrote: » OK another guy did. And then you took up his argument. So... By proxy.
Tail Docker wrote: » He has a bike. Bikes are good. Cars are bad. End of argument. I glued a bike to the front of my car, confuses the feck out of them.
ezra_pound wrote: » OK so I've seen a car going at least 100mph . so what?
Tail Docker wrote: » Lol, the old poxy arguement. it's a classic.
Red Nissan wrote: » I can categorically say without impunity that this statement is false.
ezra_pound wrote: » The post I responded to claimed it was illegal and you took up their argument saying you never said it was illegal so you were essentially arguing their point for them so...
Tail Docker wrote: » You're clutching at straws there. I'll be frank, I don't like cyclists, they annoy me and clutter the roads. I also dislike people on sulkies. Times have moved on, we have cars. There's no need to cling onto outdated forms of transport.
Tail Docker wrote: » There's no need to cling onto outdated forms of transport.
Tail Docker wrote: » Yeah, but sadly, I much prefer 0 abreast. There you go.
Sir Arthur Daley wrote: » How dare you say my €6k cervelo an outdated form of transport.
looking_around wrote: » You can prefer it, but it doesn't matter to your overtaking procedure. Or it shouldn't. You wouldn't expect a car to suddenly divide itself in half so you can overtake. So deal with it and overtake safely or slowdown and wait patiently.
Tail Docker wrote: » Yeah, I usually drive some sort of turbo'd hoon mobile, so maybe that won't happen. I may bow out now, on the grounds of incontrovertible incompatibility.
Tenzor07 wrote: » I can only go by what I see in the video, a wide open almost empty road in broad daylight, you can clearly see the truck driver crossing the line, even if he looked over to change the radio station, or was texting, he would have seen the bicyclist from a good distance...which leads me to question why he clipped the cyclist..
UCDVet wrote: » In theory, I agree with you. In practice, I don't. You can quote the letter of the law - but when it comes to actual driving, the letter of the law doesn't work. I haven't spent much time in the countryside, but in Dublin, it doesn't. I remember a bus/cyclist thread with a video of a bus entering the cycle lane and people (cyclists) quoting the law that made that 'illegal'. The cyclist was in the lane and, as such, the bus could not enter. But in practice, the roads aren't wide enough. If you put a cyclist in the cycle path, and a bus outside of it, the bus is well outside of it's own lane and into the next. If everyone followed the letter of the law, at least in Dublin, where I cycle, you'd have grid-lock. The only reason things mostly sorta work, is that most people are reasonable and try to make do as best they can.
UCDVet wrote: » That's a great question, and until it's answered it would be premature to say it was attempted murder or anything else. Innocent until proven guilty and such. From the video, yes, there is no justifiable reason for the driver to hit the cyclist. But we can't see intent. The driver didn't yell, 'I'm going to hit you now - you cyclist scum!' Without a doubt - the driver is at fault. Saying it was attempted murder or similar, based on the video, is premature. It might be the case, but it also might not be.
kylith wrote: » When should they start paying, OP?
Red Nissan wrote: » Now, I don't have SIX THOUSAND EURO or the credit to get, and the most I ever paid for a used vehicle was €12,000 in 2004 spread over five years. Makes me think a rich elite are taking over our roads. Your other transport is probably a Lamborghini. :eek:
Pinch Flat wrote: » Lol. They're getting better. I cycle a daily journey from my home in Dublin 15 to merrion square in 30 odd minutes. The same journey would take me at least an hour in a car with no car parking at then end. So this is progress? The only thing I see cluttering the roads on my morning commute is thousands of mostly single occupancy cars. If you find cyclists on the road annoying, it's perhaps to examine your behaviour on the road and chill.
UCDVet wrote: » In fairness - I'm not sure the 'cuts down on traffic' argument holds much water. Most studies I've seen define traffic as 'motorized' - I'm not even kidding. They really do. So, if 10% more people switch to bicycles, the study shows a decrease in traffic - because they ignore bicycles. As a daily cyclist myself (at least in Dublin, where there is a lot of traffic) I haven't seen any evidence that cyclists cut down on traffic. Yes - my commute time in the city is shorter on a bicycle than on a car - but it's because I DON'T WAIT FOR ANYTHING - on a bicycle. A red light with a row of cars? I just cycle up to the light. When I get there, I'll turn as soon as I can, regardless of the light, because I'm on a bicycle and the only time I yield is when I think a car will hit me. When I get to the cycle paths along the canal - the cyclist traffic is pretty bad - and most of them will happily cut in line instead of waiting behind other cyclists. They'll also gladly completely block out pedestrians - but sure, we do save time. And, we've got special cycle lights too - so the motorized traffic is spending more time waiting. There have been lots of times when I see 1-2 cyclists slow down dozens of cars. Again, I cycle everyday to work - I don't own a car. Inside the city, I'm faster on a bicycle, but it's only because I'm not waiting my turn. I accelerate slower and have a lower maximum speed. In fact, on both accounts, I'm laughably slow. My reaction time is no better than a driver. If everyone in Dublin switched to a bicycle on Monday - traffic wouldn't be any better. The only advantage you could possibly get is that you could have more lanes of bicycles - but even that would have serious problems without a proper infrastructure of lights/signs/regulations and would require cyclists actually follow them. So yeah - when I cycle - it's faster *for me*. But I'm pretty sure it's slower for everyone as a whole.
the_syco wrote: » €30 bike tax.
UCDVet wrote: » - but it's because I DON'T WAIT FOR ANYTHING - .
Red Nissan wrote: » I'm a motorist, but I'm actually with you there, drive on I say, motorists and cyclists can't mix, it's absurdly stupid, and we know know how Dublin City council thinks from the Garth Brooks affair. Let cyclists free, albeit, give a few a slap with a wet fish now and again, let them off. Now, I do quantify that by experienced, expert cyclists, the grannies, no. the learners, no. OK and kids, absolutely NO. Cyclist begone by any means that does not endanger oneself or others, cyclists should have free flow, what bollox invented red lights for cyclists.
Sir Arthur Daley wrote: » How dare you say i drive a Lamborghini. A Lamborghini is a poor mans Ferrari don't you know.
