Those damn cyclists again!

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Why just pick on cyclists constantly?

Fecking motorist hogging the outside lanes for no good reason.

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.

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).

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.

Did this happen in Ireland?

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.

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.

Jawgap wrote: »

It was badly planned, badly communicated, badly implemented and badly managed..........and has nothing to do with this thread

Yes, I fully agree - it was badly planned by Aiken and GAA, badly communicated by Aiken and GAA, badly implemented by Aiken and GAA, and badly managed by by Aiken and GAA, and yes, it has nothing to do with this thread except for the slur on DCC that should be withdrawn.

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.




.

You should copy this post and refer to it when the writs start flying.

You really think this won't end up in the High Court? The City Manager's admission that he supported 5 concerts, even if he qualified it and even if the support was offered in principle only, has guaranteed two things.....

.....,the City Council being sued

....,the case being settled out of court for a serious wedge of cash

A worse example of the administration of public law I've rarely seen.......and I've seen some really doozies!

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.

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.

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.

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.

I know this won't be popular - but a lot of people who cycle aren't actually helping the environment. (not really directing this at you - just an interesting follow-up).

They 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

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

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.

I cycle a lot - I'm not trying to discourage anyone from cycling. But I do have some very smug friends who think they are helping the environment, but they aren't. Hell, they'll even go for 2-hour long drives, with their bicycles, so they can spend the weekend riding in some remote location.....and well, I don't want to ruin their fun, but that's all it is. Fun. They aren't doing the environment any favours - but they sure like to act like they are.

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.

100% agree.

I actually did spend some time looking to see if anyone had done a study on it; but I had no luck. Most of my cycling now is in the city and I'm usually in a cycle lane - but I used to ride in more rural areas and there were plenty of locations where traffic would have to slow down behind me, wait until it was clear, then zip past me. I really would love to know.

I also feel like switching motorists to cyclists doesn't reduce traffic - except in very specific situations.

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.

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.