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

Cyclists mega-thread (WARNING: Before posting you must read post #1)

1…1415171920…31

Comments

  • #482
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,100 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    steveblack wrote: »
    It all makes sense now,a lot of the cycling zealots are not happy in their life and want to make those happy car users suffer just like they do.

    My advice get a car and get a girlfriend, you only live once, dont be bitter you whole life.

    Any facts to back that rubbish up with? :rolleyes:


  • #483
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,003 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Any facts to back that rubbish up with? :rolleyes:
    I am more impressed with the fact that he has narrowed down all cyclists down to bisexuals, lesbians and hetero men. I thought it was for everyone but apparently not.


  • #484
    Zebra3
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,100 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    CramCycle wrote: »
    I am more impressed with the fact that he has narrowed down all cyclists down to bisexuals, lesbians and hetero men. I thought it was for everyone but apparently not.

    Only the shy single ones!!!!


  • #485
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Many a public road can not cope with huge volumes of motorists.

    Roads bumper to bumper, nobody moving for ages.

    All the while these stationery vehicles pump out killer emissions.

    Any thoughts on that? :rolleyes:

    He doesn't like cars either. He must be one of those punk pedestrian types I see around town.


  • #486
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    ...Or he could be just looking to stir up things between my cycling self and my motorist self who usually get on together quite well, most of the time.


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    steveblack wrote: »
    The electronic cyclist counters around dublin would tell you the numbers are well down when it rains.

    Fair weather cyclists.

    Weather stations around the country tell us that the probability of rain during any one hour is lower than many people (and some cyclists) might think.


  • #488
    ezra_pound
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    Oops. I mixed up two different posters and thought zebra3 was a bit of a 'me myself and Irene'. Apologies. Time for bed me thinks.


  • #489
    CramCycle
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,003 Mod ✭✭✭✭CramCycle


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Fair weather cyclists.

    Weather stations around the country tell us that the probability of rain during any one hour is lower than many people (and some cyclists) might think.

    And more importantly a far lower annual rainfall amount than many of the "utopian" european cycling cities that people think we should emulate. I cycle in Dublin probably a conservative 200days a year, annually I am drenched like a rat 5 of those 200 days. So far this year the count is at two.


  • #490
    John_C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭John_C


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    why, they are separate expenses.

    If you count the loan repayments along with the depreciation then your counting the cost of buying the car twice.

    I just had a look at the AA site and they only include the interest on the loan but not the capital payments so that seems OK.


  • #491
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    John_C wrote: »
    If you count the loan repayments along with the depreciation then your counting the cost of buying the car twice.

    I just had a look at the AA site and they only include the interest on the loan but not the capital payments so that seems OK.

    Agreed if a car costs 10000 to buy and depreciates by 5000 it hasn't cost you 15000


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    John_C wrote: »
    If you count the loan repayments along with the depreciation then your counting the cost of buying the car twice.

    I just had a look at the AA site and they only include the interest on the loan but not the capital payments so that seems OK.
    Purchase is a capital expense, depreciation is a running cost. Both would be included in TCO.


  • #493
    cython
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,822 ✭✭✭cython


    No Pants wrote: »
    Purchase is a capital expense, depreciation is a running cost. Both would be included in TCO.

    By both, you presumably mean any interest on the purchase and the depreciation? As otherwise I fail to see how the capital expense is a running cost since it, less the depreciation, can be recovered by selling the asset (car) at the end of it.

    For example, buy a car for 20k, pay (for argument's sake) that and 2k of interest back over 2 years. Say it depreciates 5k per year, and you sell it immediately once the 2 years are up. You have in effect spent 6k p.a. on that:

    20000
    2000 + (adding in cost of finance)
    22000
    10000 - (subtracting the money recovered on the sale)
    12000 / 2 = 6000 p.a.

    Which is made up of 1k interest p.a. and 5k depreciation p.a. and you have no other outgoings on the capital. Capital expenditure to purchase an asset should not be regarded as a running cost, as it less any depreciation (or plus appreciation as the case may be, but rarely in cars) can be recovered.


  • #494
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    cython wrote: »
    By both, you presumably mean any interest on the purchase and the depreciation? As otherwise I fail to see how the capital expense is a running cost since it, less the depreciation, can be recovered by selling the asset (car) at the end of it.
    Your calculations are sound. However, the total cost of ownership includes all the costs associated with the item, whatever it is, in this case a car. You're right that the asset value may be partially recovered later, but until that time, the spend remains a cost.


  • #495
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    No Pants wrote: »
    Your calculations are sound. However, the total cost of ownership includes all the costs associated with the item, whatever it is, in this case a car. You're right that the asset value may be partially recovered later, but until that time, the spend remains a cost.

    But it doesn't cost you twice!


  • #496
    cython
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,822 ✭✭✭cython


    No Pants wrote: »
    Your calculations are sound. However, the total cost of ownership includes all the costs associated with the item, whatever it is, in this case a car. You're right that the asset value may be partially recovered later, but until that time, the spend remains a cost.

    It doesn't technically form part of the TCO then though, at least not in the conventional sense of car ownership. Admittedly some products (e.g. IT equipment) include the capital cost in the TCO, due to extremely limited (if any!) opportunity to recoup any of the capital expense at the end, but then these calculations do not factor in depreciation, as it assumes they will lose all their value over the course of the ownership, and the depreciation and capital cost are the same.

    In calculating TCO, you typically either factor in depreciation for an asset you intend to sell, or the capital expense if the asset won't be sold/will be run into the ground, but not both. You could maybe do a Schrodinger's cat type approach whereby the TCO includes one or the other of depreciation (best case/cat alive?) or capital expenditure (worst case/cat dead?)until it is either sold or disposed of, but to include both would be more some kind of perverse running cost of ownership than total, and then you might as well bring in opportunity cost due to you not having the value of the car in cash. In short, capital cost should only come into TCO when depreciation hits 100%. The only cost from the original purchase that should be factored in alongside depreciation is the cost of finance, AKA interest.

    Just to clarify, I commute by bike from D15 into the city centre most days (taking the train when I don't) and cycle for leisure, and I also own a car. However at this point my bike is nearly accruing miles at a greater rate than the car! So I am not trying to talk up car ownership, but I also think overstating the cost of car ownership is in nobody's interest


  • #497
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    cython wrote: »
    e.g. IT equipment
    How did you guess? :)

    You've changed my mind, it doesn't make sense to calculate it the way I have for a car for a lot of people as they don't intend to keep it long term. Also the depreciation on cars isn't linear, it's hefty at the start and trails off.


  • #498
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    cython wrote: »
    overstating the cost of car ownership is in nobody's interest


    Perhaps. We have one car, which might be regarded as a bog-standard "family saloon".

    If I had a second car on stand-by for those occasions when the 'main' vehicle was not available, at the very minimum it would cost, say, €400 for Motor Tax and €300 for insurance every year. Obviously that would be a recurring expense on top of the original purchase price.

    Currently we have bikes and a trailer which cost well in excess of €700.

    However, the key difference is that the cycle equipment requires negligible expenditure every year, and also provides 'benefit in kind' that a car simply can't deliver.

    Assuming that the car and the bikes are generally used for the same purposes, the net outcome is that the car continues to cost money to run or even just own while depreciating in value, while the bikes pay for themselves over and over in terms of cost savings and other benefits such as providing physical exercise.


  • #499
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,597 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    John_C wrote: »
    If you count the loan repayments along with the depreciation then your counting the cost of buying the car twice.

    I just had a look at the AA site and they only include the interest on the loan but not the capital payments so that seems OK.

    by finance I assumed you were refering to the interest cost, not the capital cost of the repayments.


  • #500
    John_C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭John_C


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    by finance I assumed you were referring to the interest cost, not the capital cost of the repayments.

    Yeah, that's be the correct way of calculating it, as I understand things. But, like I said, I'm not an economist.


  • #501
    cython
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,822 ✭✭✭cython


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Perhaps. We have one car, which might be regarded as a bog-standard "family saloon".

    If I had a second car on stand-by for those occasions when the 'main' vehicle was not available, at the very minimum it would cost, say, €400 for Motor Tax and €300 for insurance every year. Obviously that would be a recurring expense on top of the original purchase price.

    Currently we have bikes and a trailer which cost well in excess of €700.

    However, the key difference is that the cycle equipment requires negligible expenditure every year, and also provides 'benefit in kind' that a car simply can't deliver.

    Assuming that the car and the bikes are generally used for the same purposes, the net outcome is that the car continues to cost money to run or even just own while depreciating in value, while the bikes pay for themselves over and over in terms of cost savings and other benefits such as providing physical exercise.

    Sorry, I chose my wording poorly in that particular sentence, I should have said exaggerating (i.e. making it out to be more by pulling in additional figures incorrectly) the cost rather than overstating (suggesting it's more relevant than it actually is).

    I still believe that such exaggerations are counter-productive though, as productive discussion only really comes about when both sides try to be reasonable and realistic, and while the word zealot has been thrown about in this thread already (rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter), exaggerating and massaging actual figures only serves to validate that label (and this is not to suggest that anyone did this deliberately, as I don't believe that this is the case, but rather it's a general principle that applies much more broadly than this thread!)


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Did we not have this already?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057122132
    monument wrote: »
    I'm seeing an increasing amount of "shared use" in street and road redesign projects across Ireland -- it now seems to be the default for new designs and redesigns to mix people on foot and those on bicycles. This is regardless of the fact that many people dislike mixing the two modes of transport.

    There has also been a national move in places to copy Dublin's mistake of just reclassing footpaths as shared use path.

    There are some places where mixing the two can work, ie short sections of side streets where speeds are low. But it seems to have become the default without any debate.

    It's really seems like a compromise too far -- the two don't mix well, and many cyclists (legally) keep to the road. Why can't we follow the examples in Denmark or the Netherlands, rather than following the failed design of shared use?

    Does anybody care that the Department of Transport, the NTA and councils are legalising cycling on footpaths via the back door?


  • #503
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,109 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Did we not have this already?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057122132

    This time it's staying on topic.

    To be clear: This is not a general discussion thread, this is a thread about stopping shared use being used.

    -- moderator


  • #504
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Why should we stop sharing between pedestrians and cyclists, there are obvious parallels between allowing shared use of roads by cyclists and heavier traffic, but for some reason cyclists, in general, seem content to allow that situation when it suits them.

    Is it, yet again, a case of some cyclists wanting something. So everyone should concede to their point of view?


  • #505
    Subpopulus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 837 ✭✭✭Subpopulus


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Why should we stop sharing between pedestrians and cyclists, there are obvious parallels between allowing shared use of roads by cyclists and heavier traffic, but for some reason cyclists, in general, seem content to allow that situation when it suits them.

    Because it's dangerous, obviously. It encourages relatively fast moving bikes into areas with slow moving pedestrians, placing them into conflict. It endangers both pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists can't travel as fast on shared surfaces so they have to slow down and be constantly alert, reducing the efficacy of cycling as a mode of transport and making it less appealing. It also blurs the line between pavement cycling being illegal and it being legal.

    There is little parallel with cyclists sharing road space with motorised vehicles. This, like sharing road space with pedestrians, puts cyclists into conflict with vehicles, endangering the lives of the cyclists. Most cyclists, if asked whether they would rather travel in a segregated lane, or amongst moving traffic, would opt for the former. This isn't a case of cyclists picking and choosing - in an ideal world all, cycling infrastructure would be separated from both pedestrians and motorised vehicles.


  • #506
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,109 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    monument wrote: »
    This time it's staying on topic.

    To be clear: This is not a general discussion thread, this is a thread about stopping shared use being used.

    -- moderator
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Why should we stop sharing between pedestrians and cyclists, there are obvious parallels between allowing shared use of roads by cyclists and heavier traffic, but for some reason cyclists, in general, seem content to allow that situation when it suits them.

    Is it, yet again, a case of some cyclists wanting something. So everyone should concede to their point of view?

    Posts moved. The thread you posted them on is a thread about stopping shared use being used, it's not about why -- that discussion which already happened when the previous thread you linked to above was brought widely off-topic.

    Don't bother posting on the other thread -- this is not a request. You're being excessively disruptive. Keep this up and you will be asked to not post on any cycling thread.

    Reporting this post will get you an infraction -- using the PM system is your first step if you are unhappy with moderation.

    -- moderator


  • #507
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Subpopulus wrote: »
    Because it's dangerous, obviously. It encourages relatively fast moving bikes into areas with slow moving pedestrians, placing them into conflict. It endangers both pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists can't travel as fast on shared surfaces so they have to slow down and be constantly alert, reducing the efficacy of cycling as a mode of transport and making it less appealing. It also blurs the line between pavement cycling being illegal and it being legal.

    There is little parallel with cyclists sharing road space with motorised vehicles. This, like sharing road space with pedestrians, puts cyclists into conflict with vehicles, endangering the lives of the cyclists. Most cyclists, if asked whether they would rather travel in a segregated lane, or amongst moving traffic, would opt for the former. This isn't a case of cyclists picking and choosing - in an ideal world all, cycling infrastructure would be separated from both pedestrians and motorised vehicles.

    It's only dangerous if you aren't paying attention or cycling too fast for the conditions, just like non segregated motorised traffic not paying attenion or driving at inappriate speeds.

    It is interesting though that you immediately jump on the "dangerous" bandwagon when in many other threads some cyclists view themselves as not dangerous to pedestrians because of their lower mass especially any that involve RLJing or cycling through pedestrian crossings?


  • #508
    Subpopulus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 837 ✭✭✭Subpopulus


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    It's only dangerous if you aren't paying attention or cycling too fast for the conditions, just like non segregated motorised traffic not paying attenion or driving at inappriate speeds.

    It is interesting though that you immediately jump on the "dangerous" bandwagon when in many other threads some cyclists view themselves as not dangerous to pedestrians because of their lower mass especially any that involve RLJing or cycling through pedestrian crossings?

    I'm not condoning breaking red lights, nor does the fact that others do affect the argument that shared use is dangerous.

    The argument that shared use is dangerous is only part of it though. The main irritation in it for me is that it forces you to cycle very slowly in places, weaving around pedestrians, slowing to walking pace a lot of the time. There's no suggestion of which side you pass someone on, so as you approach a pedestrian you have to 'bargain' with them as to who moves to which side. I was coming up behind a pedestrian on the Lee Fields walk recently - I rang my bell to warn him as going around him to the right - he immediately jumped to the right (into my path) to let me through on the left. No accident came from it but it gives an idea of the conflict that shared use entails, even if you travel slowly and considerately.


  • #509
    TheQuietFella
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,857 ✭✭✭TheQuietFella


    I would argue that cyclists shouldn't be on motorways, dual carriageways & on some streets in Dublin City Centre
    but they are & controls should be in place to prevent them from using lanes without ANY consideration for fellow
    road users & they are none. I'm irritated when cyclists cycle narrow roads in packs which prevent motorists from
    moving past them safely!

    I'm not anti-cyclist as I'm a cyclist myself but some form of common sense has to come in to play here!


  • #510
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Subpopulus wrote: »
    I'm not condoning breaking red lights, nor does the fact that others do affect the argument that shared use is dangerous.

    The argument that shared use is dangerous is only part of it though. The main irritation in it for me is that it forces you to cycle very slowly in places, weaving around pedestrians, slowing to walking pace a lot of the time. There's no suggestion of which side you pass someone on, so as you approach a pedestrian you have to 'bargain' with them as to who moves to which side. I was coming up behind a pedestrian on the Lee Fields walk recently - I rang my bell to warn him as going around him to the right - he immediately jumped to the right (into my path) to let me through on the left. No accident came from it but it gives an idea of the conflict that shared use entails, even if you travel slowly and considerately.

    There's nothing inherently wrong with having to proceed slowly and with caution, as a motorist I'm often driving at sub 20 kph on roads, roads where if I wished I could probably do the speed limit but experience has taught me better


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,109 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    TheQuietFella wrote: »
    I would argue that cyclists shouldn't be on motorways, dual carriageways & on some streets in Dublin City Centre

    Bicycles are already not allowed to be used on motorways...

    But exactly which dual carriageways and city centre streets do you think they should be banned from?


Advertisement