Those damn cyclists again!

Tail Docker · 18-07-2014 11:31PM

ezra_pound wrote: »

OK another guy did. And then you took up his argument. So... By proxy.

Lol, the old poxy arguement. it's a classic.

ezra_pound · 18-07-2014 11:33PM

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.

I'm afraid cars are not cognisant and cannot be confused even with bikes strapped onto them.

Red Nissan · 18-07-2014 11:33PM

ezra_pound wrote: »

OK so I've seen a car going at least 100mph . so what?

I can categorically say without impunity that this statement is false.

ezra_pound · 18-07-2014 11:34PM

Tail Docker wrote: »

Lol, the old poxy arguement. it's a classic.

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...

ezra_pound · 18-07-2014 11:35PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

I can categorically say without impunity that this statement is false.

??

dellas1979 · 18-07-2014 11:35PM

I dont agree with the OP that bike riders should pay to use the road. But definitely a bit more regulation and enforcement of rules.

Near where I work, last year, sadly, a cyclist was knocked down and killed because he whizzed (or tried to) across a pedestrian crossing instead of using the roundabout.

This person would probably still be alive and the driver not traumatised if he had followed the rules.

If a cyclist doesnt follow the rules, its bad. If a driver doesnt follow the rules, its bad. If both meet doing stupid things on the road = disaster.

But dont even get me started on those pedestrian crossings right on roundabouts...far more dangerous.

Tail Docker · 18-07-2014 11:37PM

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...

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 There's no need to cling onto outdated forms of transport.

ezra_pound · 18-07-2014 11:38PM

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 There's no need to cling onto outdated forms of transport.

Enlightening view.

Sir Arthur Daley · 18-07-2014 11:42PM

Tail Docker wrote: »

There's no need to cling onto outdated forms of transport.

How dare you say my €6k cervelo an outdated form of transport.

looking_around · 18-07-2014 11:45PM

Tail Docker wrote: »

Yeah, but sadly, I much prefer 0 abreast. There you go.

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.

Deank · 18-07-2014 11:49PM

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

How dare you say my €6k cervelo an outdated form of transport.

He will though, just wait for it

What's a cervelo BTW, some sort of fancy bike?

Tail Docker · 18-07-2014 11:50PM

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.

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.

looking_around · 18-07-2014 11:52PM

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.

Shall I repeat myself?

"....or slow down and wait patiently"

UCDVet · 18-07-2014 11:54PM

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..

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.

Pinch Flat · 18-07-2014 11:54PM

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.

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.

ezra_pound · 18-07-2014 11:55PM

Red Nissan wrote: »

I can categorically say without impunity that this statement is false.

No you can't. What's your point? That a cyclist should get out of its way?

UCDVet · 18-07-2014 11:59PM

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.

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.

looking_around · 19-07-2014 12:01AM

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.

The poster I quoted, and you'll find has been talking of country roads and overtaking on bends.
Sorry but the law, should be followed to the letter in these cases.

I've also never seeing cyclists cycling 2 abreast in the city. The main cyclists do this, is for safety as it forces drivers to overtake correctly, you don't generally need to do this in cities, and well everyone is generally going at a steady pace.

Tony EH · 19-07-2014 12:03AM

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.

According to the comments on YouTube, the driver actually returned to the cyclist, who BTW, suffered some really serious injuries.

Red Nissan · 19-07-2014 12:07AM

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

How dare you say my €6k cervelo an outdated form of transport.

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:

the_syco · 19-07-2014 12:08AM

kylith wrote: »

When should they start paying, OP?

€30 bike tax.

Tail Docker · 19-07-2014 12:09AM

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:

A carbon fiber frame saves at least twenty extra polar bears.

UCDVet · 19-07-2014 12:09AM

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.

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.

Pinch Flat · 19-07-2014 12:15AM

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.

Well yeah fair points. Cycling is not for everyone. They estimate 7000 people cycle into dublin every morning - so if all of these reverted to the car or public transport, surely an impact would be felt?

looking_around · 19-07-2014 12:15AM

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.

No petrol/diesel usage, is a benefit to everyone., and you can fit more bikes on a road than cars.

Sir Arthur Daley · 19-07-2014 12:17AM

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:

How dare you say i drive a Lamborghini. A Lamborghini is a poor mans Ferrari don't you know.

Pinch Flat · 19-07-2014 12:19AM

the_syco wrote: »

€30 bike tax.

How did you arrive at this arbitrary figure?

Red Nissan · 19-07-2014 12:22AM

UCDVet wrote: »

- but it's because I DON'T WAIT FOR ANYTHING - .

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.

ezra_pound · 19-07-2014 12:31AM

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.

What does Garth brooks have to do with this?

Red Nissan · 19-07-2014 12:41AM

Sir Arthur Daley wrote: »

How dare you say i drive a Lamborghini. A Lamborghini is a poor mans Ferrari don't you know.

I think I could argue that one, you're not even a cyclist.

Those damn cyclists again!

Comments