Tail Docker wrote: » I noticed the Dublin city manager that spannered the Garf Books gig rides a bike.
robertxxx wrote: » 1/ 10 people on bikes.2/ Makes no sense to point one.3/ if a bike has peddles then this is a lie.4/ You either live too close to your job or you cannot drive properly.
100200 shih wrote: » I drive 160 km daily to get to work, Galway - Clifden road. I leave home every morning at 6.45 am, get into the office early,great no cyclist. I finish at 5 pm & then I have the joy of been stuck be-hide at least 5 set of people on bikes on any given sunny day. Normally in 2/3/4 having a great chat going about 5/10 km in a 100 km area. My drive take 1.15 hr each way as the road are all bends ( no cycle lanes ), with some of these road just able to have 2 cars on them . So when you come across a number of cyclist & you just want to get home and they are having a great chat while there is a pile of people trying to get home, I find this very annoying. Can people not wait to have there leisure cycles to at least people get home from work.Lots of people have to commute to work so I know that I am not the only one that gets fed up because the 75 min drive can turn into 90 mins because of cyclist. ( That is 15 mins *5 = 1.15 hours less time with my kids a week ) Last Thursday evening, just outside the city I saw ahead a really big women cycling really really slow, not in control of her bike , going to middle of the road to the side of the road in & out of traffic with 1 hand on the bike without looking around her. I was over taking here & she was on the phone has a great chat with about 20 cars stuck be-hide her. :mad::mad::mad:
100200 shih wrote: » No Pants wrote: » The insolence of those people! Going for a cycle without even running it by you first to see if it would cause you inconvenience.[/QUOTE Now that's a silly statement , I was suggesting that when people are going for there leisure cycles which people are entitle to, that they may let the people get home form work before they slow everyone down, Steady now! No place for common sense like that her. Cyclists have the right to hold up as much traffic as they like. Now, if a farmer on a tractor does it..they have to pull in, as it's an offence, and yup, illegal..
No Pants wrote: » The insolence of those people! Going for a cycle without even running it by you first to see if it would cause you inconvenience.[/QUOTE Now that's a silly statement , I was suggesting that when people are going for there leisure cycles which people are entitle to, that they may let the people get home form work before they slow everyone down,
Grandpa Hassan wrote: » The chip doesn't seem to slow us down when we're flying past you stuck in your queue of traffic
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.
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: » 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.
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
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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. .
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'.
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: » ........ 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. ......
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.
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.
