Canis Lupus wrote: » Why just pick on cyclists constantly?
LexieOnRale wrote: » I assure you in this particular case, he just seemed to be dodging traffic. A lot of Cyclists just seem to think they're exempt from the rules and then when they get hurt of course it's someone else's fault because they're only on a bike. That guy yesterday was behind me, weaved in and cut in infront of me, and had I given him a smack of the car you can bet I'd have been the one up **** creek with no paddle. No helmet on him either!!!
And there's a special place in hell for the assholes who cycle on pedestrian paths.
looking_around wrote: » ...... In this case, blame the lack of cycle lanes or really badly placed cycle lanes. If they're cycling slowly on the foot path, it's really not big deal.
Jawgap wrote: » To be honest, there's no need to cycle on a footpath - unless you're a kid. If you feel you have to leave the road and mount the path, get off the bike and walk it - what's the difference between walking the bike and cycling slowly? (other than in the former case you're not doing anything wrong, annoying people or running the risk of causing a low speed accident).
Jawgap wrote: » To be honest, there's no need to cycle on a footpath - unless you're a kid.
looking_around wrote: » There's a footpath here that nobody uses, Just before I take a turn home. I cycle on this path because it's too dangerous on the road. I'm not aware of it being "wrong" though. Care to quote something stating it's illegal? I've also never hit anybody as I keep good eye on the path ahead, stop when people pass, and ask kindly for others to let me pass. Oh and as to the difference. I have a bad knee, and I find it easier to cycle than dealing with the 'shock' of every step. So I cycle more than I walk.
Driving on Footway 13. (1) Subject to sub-articles (2) and (3), a vehicle shall not be driven along or across a footway. (2) Sub-article (1) does not apply to a vehicle being driven for the purpose of access to or egress from a place adjacent to the footway. (3) A reference in sub-article (1) to driving along or across a footway, includes s reference to driving wholly or partly along or across a footway.
Jawgap wrote: » Really ? I mean......REALLY? .......the Road Traffic (Traffic and Parking) Regulations, 1997. Sorry about your knee - I have had my cruciates rebuilt following and accident and the later-medials in my other knee still play up (same accident) - if you are getting pain in your knees when cycling you need to have a look at your set-up, it might even be worth your while getting a professional bikefit done and tell the guy about your knew problems. It worked for me.
wendell borton wrote: » Fecking motorist hogging the outside lanes for no good reason.
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.
HurtLocker wrote: » Presume he's showing how Dublin City Council can't plan very well.
dellas1979 wrote: » 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.
RainyDay wrote: » ........ At risk of going off-topic, the Garth Brooks debacle shows how DCC can plan very well, and refused to let itself be bullied by those who decided to ignore planning. ......
Jawgap wrote: » I know this dragging matters further off topic, but this statement is ridiculous.......the decision will cost the city (meaning taxpayers) tens of millions. Not in the business lost, but when the promoter sues the City Council.......plus the revelations from the City Manager just gave a charter to resident groups to extort money from event organisers anywhere in the city.
Jawgap wrote: » It was badly planned, badly communicated, badly implemented and badly managed..........and has nothing to do with this thread
RainyDay wrote: » You might like to do a bit of reading on 'peak oil' and then come back about what forms of transport are 'outdated'.
RainyDay wrote: » The decision did not cost the taxpayer a penny. The money that would have been spent on Garth's tickets and hotel rooms at double or triple normal rates will still be spent in Ireland. It will be spent in local pubs and restaurants, and will create jobs, and bring in VAT revenue there. A huge pile of the money won't be going out of the country in Garth's briefcase and to pay the costs of his overseas crew. The only person that will lose millions in the unlikely scenario that Aiken sues the DCC would be Aiken, who would end up paying millions in legal fees for himself and the Council, on top of the millions that he has already wasted. .
Tail Docker wrote: » I've been hearing about that being impending since I was a little kid. I'm not a little kid any more, long past. Same as my cycling days.
looking_around wrote: » but it is, it really is only a matter of time til there's no more oil. They actually suspect in the next 20-30years iirc. Where they telling you in 20years there would be no oil, when you were a kid? Or just that there would be an oil shortage? it is a limited fuel source, just like the fuel in your car runs, so too will the earths reservoirs.
There has been a significant loss of motor tax income in recent years, as the number of vehicles taxed on the basis of CO2 emissions has increased by about 5% year on year. While this is very welcome from an environmental perspective, it has represented an increasing loss to the local government fund. Receipts have been reduced from €1,060 million in 2008 to €1,010 million last year. Once older cars are replaced by cars taxed on the basis of CO2 in the next 15 years or so, it is estimated that total motor tax from cars will fall by more than 40%. In the current economic circumstances, and given the need to maintain a diversified and stable taxation system, this loss of income represents an opportunity cost that must be rectified.
UCDVet wrote: » I distinctly remember being told there would be *NO* oil left by 2000. As in 'none at all'. This was by a guest speaker that came in to talk about alternative energy for some science fair in the late 80s. Even as a child, that sounded ridiculous. I don't know if it was meant to scare us or if the speaker actually believed it. It was probably based on some valid figures that just made ridiculous assumptions.
Tail Docker wrote: » In 20 years, i'll be dead. Not.two.fecks.do.I.give what happens in twenty years. I get it hard to be bothered about anything past the next three hours. And before you yap on about how much oil you're saving getting wet cycling to work, have a think on how much that plane that just took off from Dublin airport burns in an hour. You'd be a lifetime fuelling your car with what it burns in a single flight.
Riding a bicycle uses up 1.62 kJ/(km∙kg). Let's assume the rider weighs 80kg, which is below or above average for a male depending on country. Allow 20kg for bike, clothes etc. and we have 100kg. Thus the 25km takes 4050kJ total -- that is 967 kcal. Now, the food CO2 equivalent per kcal depends a lot on the type of food. For example: soy 0.07g/kcal chicken 1.67g/kcal beef 13.82g/kcal So, the CO2 equivalent from the extra food needed for cycling would be: 0.068 kg for soy 1.6 kg for chicken 13.4 kg for beef
UCDVet wrote: » I know this won't be popular - but a lot of people who cycle aren't actually helping the environment. The compare the CO2 cost of driving their car and compare it to 'zero' - which is nonsense. The bicycle needs to be powered and people are really inefficient at powering things. The energy needed to move the bicycle comes from the food we eat. Most of us, who aren't vegetarians who only eat locally grown food - goes to the store, buys whatever, and eats it. The environmental impact of eating meat is quite substantial and the extra calories required to power the bicycle aren't magically free. When you include the cost of food / calories burned - cycling sucks. An electric vehicle can be vastly superior, same with public transport.http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/5861/is-cycling-worse-for-the-environment-than-driving-to-work-if-you-need-to-take-a That's still an oversimplification since it's avoiding the manufacturing cost to the environment. If you have a car AND a bicycle and eat a 'normal' diet - sorry pal, you aren't helping the environment by cycling to work. If you skip buying a car because you have a bicycle instead - then yeah - you're doing some good. But if you aren't able to completely ditch the car, you need to go vegetarian (and focus on locally grown food). And you still need to log a LOT of km on the bicycle before you make up for the environmental cost of the manufacturing process / transport process of your bicycle.
RainyDay wrote: » But perhaps somebody could help me on one key point. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the state did bring in some kind of scheme, and let's just say that it has the amazing impact of reducing incidents of cyclists breaking red lights by 80%. So what - what benefit would arise from this?
Spook_ie wrote: » Just a snippet from a debate about motor taxation Those of you that think cyclists will never be taxed, please don't have nightmares tonight! The technology is there to do it cheaply
Tail Docker wrote: » Not to mention all the fuel the cars, lorries and busses are burning up trying desperatly to floor it to get by on the one straight section of road they get to, having been held up by the bikes.
robertxxx wrote: » Car drivers get over yourselves, your not the only one going to work, its just the car and the car environment induce rage and spineless violence to ALL other road users.
Tail Docker wrote: » I noticed the Dublin city manager that spannered the Garf Books gig rides a bike. Proof if any more was needed that bicyclists have a chip on their shoulders.
Grandpa Hassan wrote: » The chip doesn't seem to slow us down when we're flying past you stuck in your queue of traffic
