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

Nutter..was it you.

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,213 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    sham58107 wrote: »
    Maybe not you but many do ! check the cycling forum.

    Why guys wear black without lights beats me, same as dicks in cars without lights it is November !! evenings are dark and dismal, and if some unfortunate driver pedestrian had been involved in accident with this guy, who would be on keyboards now!!

    I probably cycle 6-7000 km a year and drive maybe 60-70000, so I see both sides, a lot of fools on both sides, but recently in Dublin the cycle behaviour is shocking, guys in black no lights passing on inside when cars at lights are clearly indicating to go left, drivers have enough to do trying to negotiate traffic without this. Yes some drivers are very bad as well and the one eyed car on country roads really gets me, as do phone usage. Most modern cars tell you if you have bulb out and all have Bluetooth, BTW I came across a very special Ford last week , the only one factory forgot to fit with indicators.

    Do you feel better now that you got that off your chest? I agree with you...lots of numpty's out there on the roads (i met a few myself this morning). I use lights in the dark, i wear bright clothing and obey the ROTR. I can't change other people's Driving/cycling habits. All i can do is try and not be a numpty myself.


  • Options
    #33
    Budawanny
    Registered Users Posts: 338 ✭✭Budawanny


    sham58107 wrote: »
    Maybe not you but many do ! check the cycling forum.

    Why guys wear black without lights beats me, same as dicks in cars without lights it is November !! evenings are dark and dismal, and if some unfortunate driver pedestrian had been involved in accident with this guy, who would be on keyboards now!!

    I probably cycle 6-7000 km a year and drive maybe 60-70000, so I see both sides, a lot of fools on both sides, but recently in Dublin the cycle behaviour is shocking, guys in black no lights passing on inside when cars at lights are clearly indicating to go left, drivers have enough to do trying to negotiate traffic without this. Yes some drivers are very bad as well and the one eyed car on country roads really gets me, as do phone usage. Most modern cars tell you if you have bulb out and all have Bluetooth, BTW I came across a very special Ford last week , the only one factory forgot to fit with indicators.

    You know that 99% percent of us drive too?
    15 years no penalty points.
    your driving gives you no moral authority here.
    "drivers have enough to do trying to negotiate traffic".
    NO!. Drivers ARE the traffic.

    A Pointless thread. if everyone of us raised a thread on the motoring forum for everytime i saw a car breaking a red light The servers would run out of space.


  • Options
    #34
    Ray Bloody Purchase
    Closed Accounts Posts: 689 ✭✭✭Ray Bloody Purchase


    I do have to admire taxi drivers making the comment about road tax. I'd love to know how they fare out when they complete their income tax return for the year. I'd say the biro could be fairly light when it comes to making a true and accurate statement of their annual earnings.

    /totally off the point.


  • Options
    #35
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,470 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Is it just me, or is 50 also a bit fast to be going down the hill on a wet day?


  • Options
    #36
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,213 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    I don't think 50kph is that fast. Depends on the ability of the rider i suppose.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,470 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    07Lapierre wrote: »
    I don't think 50kph is that fast. Depends on the ability of the rider i suppose.

    So the OP is saying

    There was no way in hell to avoid an accident if one small thing happened.

    Why does that apply at 70 and not at 50.

    Going down hill on a wet day.


  • Options
    #38
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,326 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    FWIW, braking from 50 means scrubbing off half the kinetic energy that braking from 70 would involve.


  • Options
    #39
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,470 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    FWIW, braking from 50 means scrubbing off half the kinetic energy that braking from 70 would involve.

    what does that mean in plain English?


  • Options
    #40
    Macy0161
    Registered Users Posts: 9,270 ✭✭✭Macy0161


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    what does that mean in plain English?
    More chance of avoiding an incident at 50 than 70! :pac:


  • Options
    #41
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,470 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    More chance of avoiding an incident at 50 than 70! :pac:

    Yes, obviously.

    However

    One small thing that causes an accident at 70k, will also more than likely cause an accident at 50.

    Furthermore, come off the bike at 50 is no joke.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Plastik
    Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭Plastik


    I came off at 50. It was no joke.


  • Options
    #43
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,213 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    So the OP is saying

    There was no way in hell to avoid an accident if one small thing happened.

    Why does that apply at 70 and not at 50.

    Going down hill on a wet day.

    I disagree. It depends on what the small thing is. it depends on the experience/skill of the rider. if were talking about an incident with another road user, their reactions may also influence the outcome.

    there are a lot of factors involved..maybe travelling at 70 would avoid an incident that might happen if the rider travelled at 50?


  • Options
    #44
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,326 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    One small thing that causes an accident at 70k, will also more than likely cause an accident at 50.
    braking distance would be roughly halved, though.
    that said, you don't want your braking surface to be your face, even if it is "only" 50km/h.


  • Options
    #45
    deandean
    Registered Users Posts: 2,218 ✭✭✭deandean


    I feel bad now.
    Fastest I ever got on that descent was only 66km/h.


  • Options
    #46
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,470 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    braking distance would be roughly halved, though.
    that said, you don't want your braking surface to be your face, even if it is "only" 50km/h.


    OK.

    I did not make the point that 50k is as dangerous as 70k.

    I didn't make the point that 50k is nearly as dangerous as 70k.

    I made the point that 50k is quite dangerous, in its own right, if 'one small thing goes wrong'.

    That has nothing to do with braking time compared to 70k.

    What happens if you hit a pothole at 50k.

    What happens if a dog runs out in front of you at 50k.

    Wider point being that OP is pitching him/ herself as moving nice and safely....while a nutter flies past them.


  • Options
    #47
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    One small thing that causes an accident at 70k, will also more than likely cause an accident at 50.

    That's complete and utter crap.


  • Options
    #48
    thejaguar
    Registered Users Posts: 730 ✭✭✭thejaguar


    Tombo2001 wrote: »
    what does that mean in plain English?

    This explains it really well I think.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3D7XYQExt0


  • Options
    #49
    Mercian Pro
    Registered Users Posts: 2,274 ✭✭✭Mercian Pro


    at1withmyself wrote: »
    Could you please explain why you think that they are a bad cyclist?


    See post #1


  • Options
    #50
    Ferris
    Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭Ferris


    I cycle down that hill every morning at 50+kph but slow to 30-40 through the village, its what I feel is safe(r). I cycle an MTB with disks btw. 70kph imo is nuts through there considering the hazards, for instance you have diagonal parking spaces past the church which cars have to reverse uphill out of. Considering the poor visibility out of the average family car there is no way the driver can see a bike coming down the hill at 30kph, let alone faster. Lets not forget that the limit is 50kph and most cars are travelling well under that. Also there is a pedestrian crossing there, wouldn't fancy trying to stop from 70 for that.


  • Options
    #51
    Fighting Tao
    Registered Users Posts: 6,482 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao


    Who had the lazer gun to measure the speed?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Kenny B
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭Kenny B


    A dog ran in front of me on the way home many moons ago, to avoid it, I hit a pot hole, which flung me into a wall, laying battered on the ground I couldn't decide to laugh or cry, that was at approx 20mph and completely unavoidable, good times,

    If some clown wants to fly down a hill at 50/70 - let him.


  • Options
    #53
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,470 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Summer Brave Sand wrote: »
    That's complete and utter crap.

    Thank you sir! Have a nice day :pac:


  • Options
    #54
    Grassey
    Registered Users Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey


    Ferris wrote:
    Lets not forget that the limit is 50kph and most cars are travelling well under that.


    Then it's working.... As the limit only applies to motorised vehicles...


  • Options
    #55
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,845 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    Budawanny wrote: »
    You know that 99% percent of us drive too?
    15 years no penalty points.
    your driving gives you no moral authority here.
    "drivers have enough to do trying to negotiate traffic".
    NO!. Drivers ARE the traffic.

    A Pointless thread. if everyone of us raised a thread on the motoring forum for everytime i saw a car breaking a red light The servers would run out of space.

    Same if we raise an a thread on the behaviour of every cyclist breaking the rules of the road we would break the server.

    Actually for every road user!


  • Options
    #56
    average_runner
    Registered Users Posts: 12,845 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    Grassey wrote: »
    Then it's working.... As the limit only applies to motorised vehicles...

    Very true but the speed limit is there for safety reasons.


  • Options
    #57
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,213 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    Ferris wrote: »
    I cycle down that hill every morning at 50+kph but slow to 30-40 through the village, its what I feel is safe(r). I cycle an MTB with disks btw. 70kph imo is nuts through there considering the hazards, for instance you have diagonal parking spaces past the church which cars have to reverse uphill out of. Considering the poor visibility out of the average family car there is no way the driver can see a bike coming down the hill at 30kph, let alone faster. Lets not forget that the limit is 50kph and most cars are travelling well under that. Also there is a pedestrian crossing there, wouldn't fancy trying to stop from 70 for that.

    This guy says hes doing 50...looks slow to me.

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


  • Options
    #58
    Thinkingaboutit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,180 ✭✭✭Thinkingaboutit


    Ray Bloody Purchase wrote: »
    I do have to admire taxi drivers making the comment about road tax. I'd love to know how they fare out when they complete their income tax return for the year. I'd say the biro could be fairly light when it comes to making a true and accurate statement of their annual earnings.

    /totally off the point.

    Unfair, biros are low quality these days. They run out of ink. :pac:


  • Options
    #59
    Ferris
    Registered Users Posts: 2,280 ✭✭✭Ferris


    Grassey wrote: »
    Then it's working.... As the limit only applies to motorised vehicles...

    The point I am making is that there is then a speed differential which creates an overtaking condition if the bike is doing "70kph".

    /although to be fair I always though that speed limits applied to all and were just not enforced.....:o


  • Options
    #60
    Wishbone Ash
    Registered Users Posts: 24,953 ✭✭✭✭Wishbone Ash


    Ferris wrote: »
    .../although to be fair I always though that speed limits applied to all and were just not enforced.....:o
    The vehicle must be constructed with a speedometer for a speed limit to apply. Most motor vehicles which do not have a speedometer are incapable to exceeding any normal speed limit e.g fork lift trucks, road rollers, dust carts etc.

    In saying that, a cyclist could be done under other regulations such as riding dangerously or whatever the terminology is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    disco1
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭disco1


    Wishbone Ash wrote: »
    What makes you think it's a genuine complaint? Perhaps the OP is a crap descender (like me) and just envious of another's confidence in the wet/dark?

    The reason many of us made light of it is because these type of threads are just so pointless. If I see a motorist/motorcyclist driving in a manner which I don't approve, I don't feel the need to start a thread about it in the Motoring/Motorcycle Forum. Nor do I feel it gives anyone else a bad name.

    Op is actually a good decender.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement