Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Those damn cyclists again!

1…3738394143

Comments

  • #1202
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


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

    How often does it happen that cyclists cause an accident resulting in damages/medical bills/repairs to cars?

    It's not something that I've ever heard the AA or motor insurers complaining about?


  • #1203
    MajesticDonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,213 ✭✭✭MajesticDonkey


    No Pants wrote: »
    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.

    Wut?


  • #1204
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    MajesticDonkey wrote: »
    Wut?
    Isn't the hard shoulder only supposed to be used for stopping in emergency cases?


  • #1205
    MajesticDonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,213 ✭✭✭MajesticDonkey


    No Pants wrote: »
    Isn't the hard shoulder only supposed to be used for stopping in emergency cases?

    For cyclists? Not that I'm aware of. Do you always avoid the hard shoulder?


  • #1206
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    MajesticDonkey wrote: »
    For cyclists? Not that I'm aware of. Do you always avoid the hard shoulder?
    No, I use it if the surface is up to the job. I'm just not certain on the legality.


  • Advertisement
  • #1207
    MajesticDonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,213 ✭✭✭MajesticDonkey


    No Pants wrote: »
    No, I use it if the surface is up to the job. I'm just not certain on the legality.

    I'm fairly certain there's nothing in law about cycling in the hard shoulder :D
    I almost always use the hard shoulder, as do most of the other cyclists I know. Never really considered the legality of it!


  • #1208
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    No Pants wrote: »
    Isn't the hard shoulder only supposed to be used for stopping in emergency cases?

    Correct


  • #1209
    MajesticDonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,213 ✭✭✭MajesticDonkey


    RainyDay wrote: »
    Correct

    Source?


  • #1210
    Tail Docker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,954 ✭✭✭Tail Docker


    MajesticDonkey wrote: »
    Source?

    Same place as the anglo bail out figures?


  • #1211
    MajesticDonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,213 ✭✭✭MajesticDonkey


    Tail Docker wrote: »
    Same place as the anglo bail out figures?

    Must be! Never in my life heard of it being illegal to cycle on a hard shoulder.


  • Advertisement
  • #1212
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    twowheelsgood wrote: »
    Surely the obvious extension of that argument is that we should discourage all forms of exercise and become (continue to be?) a nation of fat b*stards? :pac:

    And a great many of us already consume more than we need anyway and would continue to do so even if we did not cycle. I certainly have not upped my calorie intake to match what I burn off by cycling. Far from it.

    The effect of cycling is to burn up some of these “fuel reserves” from around our waists and that most definitely is beneficial, to the individual in the first place and by extension to society who will face lower health costs.

    Mind I should also add that I could live long and happy without the righteousness you get from a tiny number (in my experience) of cyclists.

    (And before you introduce my username in evidence against me, you will know, if you get the reference, that said name is followed by fourwheelsbetter! :) )
    Can't post the links now but I did spot a research paper on osteoporosis in cyclists caused by their diet when exercising. It compared the bone density of the lower spine between non exercisers, pure cycling, triathletes and runners, interesting stuff


  • #1213
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    MajesticDonkey wrote: »
    Must be! Never in my life heard of it being illegal to cycle on a hard shoulder.

    Perhaps I've misunderstood, but was always under the assumption that the hard shoulder was only for emergencies, for ALL road users...


  • #1214
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,883 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    No Pants wrote: »
    Isn't the hard shoulder only supposed to be used for stopping in emergency cases?
    unfortunately for your argument, from wikipedia:
    Full-width hard shoulders are provided on most new, upgraded (from the 1980s onwards), and major national roads in the Republic of Ireland, especially on wide two-lane and dual-carriageway roads (the shoulders on most 2+1 roads are narrow however). They are defined within the official document the Rules of the Road as a part of the road that should normally only be used by cyclists and pedestrians. Their provision of on interurban routes in the 1970s reportedly resulted in a 50% decrease in accidents involving pedal cyclists.[15]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder_%28road%29#Republic_of_Ireland


  • #1215
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,883 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    UCDVet wrote: »
    No, it's not my opinion. These are measurable, factual things. Not opinions.

    CO2 emissions for the average new car in 2006 were 167.2 g/km
    http://www.nextgreencar.com/news/86/Record-low-for-new-car-CO2-emissions
    Not an opinion.

    For 25km an average car pollutes 4.18 kg CO2.
    Not an opinion (basic math)
    etc.
    you're leaving out a very important calculation here, which is so glaring, it's almost wilful - you are counting the cost of cycling based on the carbon footprint of *producing* the cyclist's fuel to prove it's potentially not as environmentally friendly as driving.

    but you're only considering the *consumption* emissions of the petrol used in the car, rather than including the production footprint of petrol. which is such an obvious omission, it's bizarre.
    i can't find exact figures online, but no better authority than robert llewellyn explains here that the true carbon footprint of a petrol car is between 300g and 500g/km - over twice the figure you use to base your argument on:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0WNZU3Q_8g#t=3m03s


  • #1216
    John_Rambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,529 ✭✭✭✭John_Rambo


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    but you're only considering the *consumption* emissions of the petrol used in the car, rather than including the production footprint of petrol. which is such an obvious omission, it's bizarre

    And the car build, the oil, paint, electronic components, parts made all over the world, plastic and fabric manufacturing, shipping, trucking and flying from various factories all over the globe to the plant, factory emissions (from each one) eventual delivery... Where's me sandals!!!!


  • #1217
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    oak5548 wrote: »

    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.

    There's a number of posters on this thread who have no interest in any form of civil or sensible debate, and want to do nothing more than to shout down any perceived criticism.

    Maintaining an "us and them" divide seems to be the only objective for some people.


  • #1218
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    unfortunately for your argument, from wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder_%28road%29#Republic_of_Ireland
    I stand corrected. :)

    As I have already said, I use them when the surface is acceptable.


  • #1219
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    blackwhite wrote: »
    There's a number of posters on this thread who have no interest in any form of civil or sensible debate, and want to do nothing more than to shout down any perceived criticism.
    There are also those posters who label any factual information that doesn't suite their world view as 'shouting down'.


  • #1220
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    RainyDay wrote: »
    There are also those posters who label any factual information that doesn't suite their world view as 'shouting down'.

    Any post you can quote where I've done that? Or is it more "circle the wagons" and take potshots at anyone who doesn't agree with me rubbish?


    I've tried to be as consistent as possible across this thread - reasonable debate without resorting to "us and them" BS isn't difficult.
    The poster I'd quoted had made a reasonable post about the cycle lane on the Kilkenny-Carlow road (which having cycled myself this summer I know to be in extremely good condition), and was immediately responded to by numerous posters making claims about a road they clearly know nothing about. It's a sadly predictable trend on any cycling thread - there will be a cohort on the "cycling side" who refuse to acknowledge that anything remotely critical of any single cyclist could possibly be valid, and there will be a similar number on the "motorist side" who seem to think that the mere existence of cyclists is just to cause inconvenience to them specifically.

    Anyone who dares to post anything reasonable is usually attacked by one or the other of the above groups - congratulations on proving the point.


  • #1221
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    blackwhite wrote: »
    I've tried to be as consistent as possible across this thread - reasonable debate without resorting to "us and them" BS isn't difficult.
    The poster I'd quoted had made a reasonable post about the cycle lane on the Kilkenny-Carlow road (which having cycled myself this summer I know to be in extremely good condition), and was immediately responded to by numerous posters making claims about a road they clearly know nothing about. It's a sadly predictable trend on any cycling thread - there will be a cohort on the "cycling side" who refuse to acknowledge that anything remotely critical of any single cyclist could possibly be valid, and there will be a similar number on the "motorist side" who seem to think that the mere existence of cyclists is just to cause inconvenience to them specifically.

    Anyone who dares to post anything reasonable is usually attacked by one or the other of the above groups - congratulations on proving the point.

    I've gone back over the thread, and I'm struggling to find "numerous posters making claims about a road they clearly know nothing about". Perhaps you'd like to highlight which particular posts you mean.

    I do see two posters who asked questions about it. I don't see any particular claims about the condition of that road.

    But perhaps asking questions is seen to be not appropriate for cyclists?


  • Advertisement
  • #1222
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    RainyDay wrote: »
    But perhaps asking questions is seen to be not appropriate for cyclists?

    I'm a cyclist - why do you insist on trying to turn any post that doesn't agree with you into an attack on all cyclists? Or maybe you just want an excuse to attack, attack, attack?
    That's the general point I'm trying to make - anything that is seen as in anyway critical of any given cyclist is attacked by posters like yourself.


    And as for attacking the poster - here's on that implies that they were just making stuff up http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91361065&postcount=1192

    Standard instinctive response from some on here instead of maybe showing some maturity and actually considering the argument being made.


  • #1223
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    blackwhite wrote: »
    I'm a cyclist - why do you insist on trying to turn any post that doesn't agree with you into an attack on all cyclists? Or maybe you just want an excuse to attack, attack, attack?
    That's the general point I'm trying to make - anything that is seen as in anyway critical of any given cyclist is attacked by posters like yourself.


    And as for attacking the poster - here's on that implies that they were just making stuff up http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91361065&postcount=1192

    Standard instinctive response from some on here instead of maybe showing some maturity and actually considering the argument being made.

    I'm not attacking anybody. I sometimes express a view that is contrary to a lot of the standard pro-motorist agenda on threads like this. I sometimes ask some questions, the answers to which will expose the folly of a lot of the standard pro-motorist agenda on threads like this.

    I'm a bit confused and bewildered as to how two posters asking questions, one in a slighly sarky way becomes "numerous posters making claims about a road they clearly know nothing about".


  • #1224
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    RainyDay wrote: »
    I'm not attacking anybody. I sometimes express a view that is contrary to a lot of the standard pro-motorist agenda on threads like this. I sometimes ask some questions, the answers to which will expose the folly of a lot of the standard pro-motorist agenda on threads like this.

    I'm a bit confused and bewildered as to how two posters asking questions, one in a slighly sarky way becomes "numerous posters making claims about a road they clearly know nothing about".

    A thinly veiled accusation of trolling is a lot more than "slightly sarky," but it does betray the blinkered bias that you, and many others on this thread, allow to colour their posts.

    Phrases like "standard pro-motorist agenda" are more of the same.
    Do you think it's impossible for someone to want what is best for both motorists and cyclists? It's not mutually exclusive you know!

    You (and a number of others on both sides of the debate) seem utterly determined to perpetuate some state of eternal conflict between motorists and cyclists - with as aggressive a line as possible to be taken at all times.

    Is it really so hard to understand that things might be a bit (or a lot) better for all concerned if both sides of the debate actually listened to each other, instead of getting into an "us and them" game of sniping at every opportunity?


  • #1225
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    blackwhite wrote: »
    And as for attacking the poster - here's on that implies that they were just making stuff up http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91361065&postcount=1192
    Attacking the poster? :confused:
    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.
    Hardly an outlandish accusation in this fair isle of ours.

    Maybe you missed this bit, which is conciliatory.
    No Pants wrote: »
    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.


  • #1226
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    No Pants wrote: »
    Attacking the poster? :confused:
    .

    You basically accused them of trolling - their first post on the thread, and the automatic response is to imply they are trolling.

    No Pants wrote: »
    Maybe you missed this bit, which is conciliatory.

    No I didn't, but normally a response like your initial one would have torpedoed any chance at a civil discussion. Thankfully in this case the poster didn't response in a similar vein to your initial post.


  • #1227
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    blackwhite wrote: »
    You basically accused them of trolling - their first post on the thread, and the automatic response is to imply they are trolling.
    Trolling? :confused:

    Roads in Ireland are rarely perfect. Ditto for cycle lanes.

    The was a thread at the end of May where a poster claimed that a cycle lane was perfect and couldn't understand why it wasn't being used. When asked where it was, he stuck up a Google Maps link. Streetview showed road signs, a lamppost and a bus stop, all in the "perfect" cycle lane...before it terminated on the blind side of a roundabout.

    What you're referring to is known as scepticism. It's healthy. It's also nothing to do with cyclists.


  • #1228
    blackwhite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,500 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    No Pants wrote: »
    Trolling? :confused:

    Roads in Ireland are rarely perfect. Ditto for cycle lanes.

    The was a thread at the end of May where a poster claimed that a cycle lane was perfect and couldn't understand why it wasn't being used. When asked where it was, he stuck up a Google Maps link. Streetview showed road signs, a lamppost and a bus stop, all in the "perfect" cycle lane...before it terminated on the blind side of a roundabout.

    What you're referring to is known as scepticism. It's healthy.

    In this case though, the poster mentioned what the road was. Not too hard to actually check it out before implying that they made it up (i.e. trolling).

    Anyway, this has dragged the thread far too much off topic at this stage. My initial point hasn't changed, entrenched adversarial positions in this debate don't serve to make things better for anyone. Sadly, it seems to be all that some posters (on both sides of the debate) ever want to engage in.


  • #1229
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,771 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    blackwhite wrote: »
    In this case though, the poster mentioned what the road was. Not too hard to actually check it out before implying that they made it up (i.e. trolling).

    Anyway, this has dragged the thread far too much off topic at this stage. My initial point hasn't changed, entrenched adversarial positions in this debate don't serve to make things better for anyone. Sadly, it seems to be all that some posters (on both sides of the debate) ever want to engage in.

    It's true that, there often seems to be an us and them mentality come out in these debates on the roads. Personally I'm a motorist, cyclist and motorcyclist so see more perspectives than most and it is therefore much easier for me to distinguish entrenched positions. But when you're only a cyclist or only a motorist then it's very easy for people to take a narrow minded view because all they really know on the topic is viewed through one lens rather than several.


  • #1230
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    blackwhite wrote: »
    In this case though, the poster mentioned what the road was. Not too hard to actually check it out before implying that they made it up (i.e. trolling).

    Anyway, this has dragged the thread far too much off topic at this stage. My initial point hasn't changed, entrenched adversarial positions in this debate don't serve to make things better for anyone. Sadly, it seems to be all that some posters (on both sides of the debate) ever want to engage in.

    I really don't see entrenched positions. I'm a cyclist and a motorist. I make mistakes as a cyclist and as a motorist, and I learn from some of those mistakes. I learnt something on this thread about the hard shoulder.

    That doesn't stop me from asking questions or challenging other views.


  • Advertisement
  • #1231
    yes there
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 306 ✭✭yes there


    On dame street this morning a car decided to take a left turn and clattered into a cyclist. No great damage done except to the bike. Completely the drivers fault and acted as if it was the cyclists fault. Not the first incident ive witnessed where cyclists are completely ignored and are just an afterthought to motorists. in saying that I hate cyclists that run red lights, sneakily edging out. Grinds my gears that does. So to sum up there are gob****es on both sides.


Advertisement