Those damn cyclists again!

Tenzor07 · 20-07-2014 06:37PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

There should be, if a cyclist causes an accident who pays for the damages/medical bills/repairs to cars?

I don't think cars have medical bills!

Jawgap · 20-07-2014 06:41PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

There should be, if a cyclist causes an accident who pays for the damages/medical bills/repairs to cars?

Cyclists aren't immune from being sued. If they are at fault the driver or any other injured party can lodge an action against the cyclist.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 20-07-2014 06:51PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Cyclists aren't immune from being sued. If they are at fault the driver or any other injured party can lodge an action against the cyclist.

For what though? How do you sue someone who can't pay

desertcircus · 20-07-2014 06:53PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

I think the point is anyone can set up a hypothetical situation where a car is more efficient and there are plenty particularly when you start upping the distance.

What matters to most people in the real world, is a bike more efficient over journeys where it is a practical substitute for cars i.e. a journey in a large urban area not in a trip from Dublin to Cork.

As far as I can tell from UCDVet's links, even long-distance journeys, which maximise efficiency for cars, skew in favour of cycling unless you're fuelling exclusively with red meat. And almost all the cyclists I know who do serious mileage fuel themselves on carbohydrates rather than protein - energy bars, sugary snacks, sports drinks and cake are all far better options - so even for a trip from Dublin to Cork, a cyclist with a jersey stuffed with jelly beans, Lucozade and Mars bars is less of a carbon consumer than the average driver.

According to the links, even a cyclist fuelling entirely with chicken would be responsible for less carbon emissions than a driver. I'm having a hard time finding figures for carbon emissions for sugar-based products, but crops in general appear to involve between a fifth and a twentieth of the emissions of red meat, and those figures are by the kilo - so while a kilo of beef will give you about 1,300 calories, a kilo of Mars bars will give you over four thousand.

Based on the above, I'd guess that most distance cyclists are producing carbon figures at least ten times and possibly over a hundred times smaller per kilometre than the average car on a long-distance journey.

Jawgap · 20-07-2014 06:54PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

For what though? How do you sue someone who can't pay

How do you know they can't pay? A lot research indicates a lot of cyclists are actually not poor.......

Plus many cyclists carry insurance with CI and lots of household policies provide cover for legal liabilities incurred outside the home.......

Thargor · 20-07-2014 07:14PM

bilbot79 wrote: »

Cyclists paying road tax haha. What a load of tosh.

Oh no no no, we've gone beyond that, havent you heard? Eating food and cycling to your destination produces worse emissions than sitting into a 1-2 ton car and driving there...

Tenzor07 · 20-07-2014 07:17PM

Is it just me or can you hear the thud of a keyboard being furiously tapped somewhere over near a certain southside university to try show bicyclists are the cause of global warming?

Jawgap · 20-07-2014 07:26PM

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Is it just me or can you hear the thud of a keyboard being furiously tapped somewhere over near a certain southside university to try show bicyclists are the cause of global warming?

Don't mind cars, you'd think a vet would focus on the real problem......

A cow does on overage release between 70 and 120 kg of Methane per year. Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2). But the negative effect on the climate of Methane is 23 times higher than the effect of CO2. Therefore the release of about 100 kg Methane per year for each cow is equivalent to about 2'300 kg CO2 per year.

Let's compare this value of 2'300 kg CO2: The same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) is generated by burning 1'000 liters of petrol. With a car using 8 liters of petrol per 100 km, you could drive 12'500 km per year (7'800 miles per year).

World-wide, there are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls. All ruminants (animals which regurgitates food and re-chews it) on the world emit about two billion metric tons of CO2-equivalents per year. In addition, clearing of tropical forests and rain forests to get more grazing land and farm land is responsible for an extra 2.8 billion metric tons of CO2 emission per year!

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases world-wide (this is more than the whole transportation sector). Cattle-breeding is taking a major factor for these greenhouse gas emissions according to FAO. Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO's Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: "Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."

looking_around · 20-07-2014 07:45PM

UCDVet wrote: »

All other things being equal - two identical twins with identical heights, weights, builds and fitness levels....

The twin that cycles will NEED to burn more calories throughout the day.

The only way for them to maintain the same weight is for the cyclist to eat more. Because cycling takes more energy from the rider than driving takes from the driver.

All other things being equal.

Nobody is saying there isn't some fat guy in a car who eats a lot more than he needs.

but the point is they are consuming the same, regardless of how they use it, they are still consuming the same amount.

With the majority of people being overweight. This means it's highly likely that most drivers are consuming the same as what the cyclist needs.
That is to say.
Their carbon footprint is higher when combined with the car.

(this is not taking in any other factors, which there are that make driving worse.)
Anyway, I've humoured you long enough, It's nothing to me if you want to believe cycling is the worse of the two.

No Pants · 20-07-2014 07:51PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Bold clam.

That's an unusual insult.

Tenzor07 · 20-07-2014 07:51PM

A case here for having a bit of patience for bicyclists, as this left turning cyclist found out when a skip truck tried to overtake her at a junction:

Tail Docker · 20-07-2014 07:54PM

looking_around wrote: »

Guess you have no kids or family? You're happy to hand them down a failing world?

well ok then.

I cant stop the plane flying, I can choose not to drive my car a short distance, for no reason, other than laziness.

I have kids, 3.

Just for the craic, for the laugh, for the banter, google traffic jams in Beijing, or addis abbaba, or Los Angeles.
As you pedal along, saving the environment and protecting the whales from the polar bears, have a think on. Will all those people join you? Or are you effectively peddaling, sorry, piddling in the wind? If everyone, and I mean everyone in Ireland parked up their cars tomorrow and hopped on a bike, not a jot, nor a whit, of a difference will it make.

oak5548 · 20-07-2014 07:54PM

Drove out the Dublin road in kilkenny today. Massive cycle lane on both sides, as good quality as the road and wide enough for a car and goes for a good 5-10km. Still came across a few people refusing to use it out on the road.

No idea why, its absolutely perfect!

No Pants · 20-07-2014 07:57PM

oak5548 wrote: »

No idea why, its absolutely perfect!

How often do you use it?

Tenzor07 · 20-07-2014 07:57PM

Tail Docker wrote: »

Just for the craic, for the laugh, for the banter, google traffic jams in Beijing, or addis abbaba, or Los Angeles.
As you pedal along, saving the environment and protecting the whales from the polar bears, have a think on. Will all those people join you? Or are you effectively peddaling, sorry, piddling in the wind? If everyone, and I mean everyone in Ireland parked up their cars tomorrow and hopped on a bike, not a jot, nor a whit, of a difference will it make.

Nah, let those Polar bears pedal and save themselves!

looking_around · 20-07-2014 07:58PM

Tail Docker wrote: »

I have kids, 3.

Just for the craic, for the laugh, for the banter, google traffic jams in Beijing, or addis abbaba, or Los Angeles.
As you pedal along, saving the environment and protecting the whales from the polar bears, have a think on. Will all those people join you? Or are you effectively peddaling, sorry, piddling in the wind? If everyone, and I mean everyone in Ireland parked up their cars tomorrow and hopped on a bike, not a jot, nor a whit, of a difference will it make.

It would make a huge difference, one there'd be millions of less oil used.
But keep thinking as you like.

Here's a quote for you, teach it to your kids so that they can be better, less selfish people.

“Once upon a time, there was a wise man who used to go to the ocean to do his writing. He had a habit of walking on the beach before he began his work.

One day, as he was walking along the shore, he looked down the beach and saw a human figure moving like a dancer. He smiled to himself at the thought of someone who would dance to the day, and so, he walked faster to catch up.

As he got closer, he noticed that the figure was that of a young man, and that what he was doing was not dancing at all. The young man was reaching down to the shore, picking up small objects, and throwing them into the ocean.

He came closer still and called out "Good morning! May I ask what it is that you are doing?"

The young man paused, looked up, and replied "Throwing starfish into the ocean."

"I must ask, then, why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?" asked the somewhat startled wise man.

To this, the young man replied, "The sun is up and the tide is going out. If I don't throw them in, they'll die."

Upon hearing this, the wise man commented, "But, young man, do you not realize that there are miles and miles of beach and there are starfish all along every mile? You can't possibly make a difference!"

At this, the young man bent down, picked up yet another starfish, and threw it into the ocean. As it met the water, he said,
"It made a difference for that one.”
― Loren Eiseley

and another.

“I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do.”
― Edward Everett Hale

Jawgap · 20-07-2014 08:00PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Bold clam.

No Pants wrote: »

That's an unusual insult.

Don't be so shellfish......

oak5548 · 20-07-2014 08:00PM

No Pants wrote: »

How often do you use it?

No really. Its absolutely perfect, trust me on this one. Its the in the exact same condition as the road with zero debris, potholes, rubbish, or the likes.

looking_around · 20-07-2014 08:09PM

Ella Henderson wrote: »

There's ad campaigns politely asking farm vehicles to move aside to let other vehicles by, why is there never any such request for cyclists?

because it would likely lead to the assumption that every cyclist will move out of the way immediately when a car comes up, leading to more drivers dangerously overtaking.

(assumption yes, but it's exactly what I see happening.)

MajesticDonkey · 20-07-2014 08:13PM

oak5548 wrote: »

No really. Its absolutely perfect, trust me on this one. Its the in the exact same condition as the road with zero debris, potholes, rubbish, or the likes.

Unless you're driving at 20km/h, and even then, it's almost impossible to find problems with a surface which may affect a cyclist. I know this as a sportive organiser when driving/marking the routes - the only real way to find surface problems is to cycle it beforehand.

No Pants · 20-07-2014 08:13PM

oak5548 wrote: »

No really. Its absolutely perfect, trust me on this one. Its the in the exact same condition as the road with zero debris, potholes, rubbish, or the likes.

Ah, you nearly had me going there. Imagine, a piece of road in Ireland that's in perfect condition, with no potholes, debris, etc.

Jawgap · 20-07-2014 08:14PM

Ella Henderson wrote: »

There's ad campaigns politely asking farm vehicles to move aside to let other vehicles by, why is there never any such request for cyclists?

Maybe because it's not a problem.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swnGEbKp7QY

No Pants · 20-07-2014 08:20PM

Ella Henderson wrote: »

There's ad campaigns politely asking farm vehicles to move aside to let other vehicles by, why is there never any such request for cyclists?

Because any halfway competent driver should be able to deal with a person on a bicycle without drama. Because a bicycle and a tractor are very different? Take your pick.

oak5548 · 20-07-2014 08:23PM

No Pants wrote: »

Ah, you nearly had me going there. Imagine, a piece of road in Ireland that's in perfect condition, with no potholes, debris, etc.

Here's a small section of it.

Exact same condition of the road, but im sure you will find something wrong with it and refuse to cycle in it. Cant keep people happy at all.

Before this was installed, there was nothing but a small hard shoulder and a wider road. I wonder which you'd prefer tbh.

No need to immediately reject my claims of a usable cycle path instantly which seems to be the general trend in this thread, its quite pedantic.
And yes, I'm aware that the video is a large cycle and i have no problem with them being on the road for that.

I just wanted to know why the 3 or so cyclists I saw today werent using it.

CramCycle · 20-07-2014 08:27PM

UCDVet wrote: »

All other things being equal - two identical twins with identical heights, weights, builds and fitness levels....

The twin that cycles will NEED to burn more calories throughout the day.

The only way for them to maintain the same weight is for the cyclist to eat more. Because cycling takes more energy from the rider than driving takes from the driver.

All other things being equal.

Nobody is saying there isn't some fat guy in a car who eats a lot more than he needs.

Simply untrue overtime, as one twin becomes fitter and more fuel efficient and his metabolism effectively shifts to suit his change in lifestyle.

It's quite feasible that the cycling twin can eat the same amount of food.and not need an increase in calories over time, dependent on distance and other factors.

Jawgap wrote: »

Don't be so shellfish......

Enough of this codding around.

No Pants · 20-07-2014 08:27PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

For what though? How do you sue someone who can't pay

How much damage do you think a cyclist can cause? Besides, I think this has been covered in this thread already. Previous threads too.

MajesticDonkey · 20-07-2014 08:28PM

oak5548 wrote: »

Here's a small section of it.

Exact same condition of the road, but im sure you will find something wrong with it and refuse to cycle in it. Cant keep people happy at all.

Before this was installed, there was nothing but a small hard shoulder and a wider road. I wonder which you'd prefer tbh.

No need to immediately reject my claims of a usable cycle path instantly which seems to be the general trend in this thread, its quite pedantic.
And yes, I'm aware that the video is a large cycle and i have no problem with them being on the road for that.

Fair enough.

oak5548 wrote: »

I just wanted to know why the 3 or so cyclists I saw today werent using it.

The only plausible reason is that they don't have to.

Jawgap · 20-07-2014 08:30PM

CramCycle wrote: »

......
Enough of this codding around.

It'll take a mod to be me in my plaice.

John_Rambo · 20-07-2014 08:43PM

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

The only plausible reason is that they don't have to.

I'd be in the cycle lane... Where there's a decent one - I'll use it! Some of the performance lads and lassies have very delicate tyres and that type of cycle lane is a magnet for road debris. Nuts, bolts, litter, glass, oil, cans, small stuff you don't see from a car.

No Pants · 20-07-2014 08:56PM

oak5548 wrote: »

Exact same condition of the road, but im sure you will find something wrong with it and refuse to cycle in it. Cant keep people happy at all.

Before this was installed, there was nothing but a small hard shoulder and a wider road. I wonder which you'd prefer tbh.

No need to immediately reject my claims of a usable cycle path instantly which seems to be the general trend in this thread, its quite pedantic.
And yes, I'm aware that the video is a large cycle and i have no problem with them being on the road for that.

I just wanted to know why the 3 or so cyclists I saw today werent using it.

I can't see anything wrong with it at all, at least not from that video. The only thing I can think of is that maybe people don't know it's a cycle lane and think it's just the hard shoulder, which they're not supposed to be in.

Those damn cyclists again!

Comments