Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Maybe that's because cyclists aren't killing 30-40 pedestrians each year?

Here we go again, defining every anti social activity short of killing as acceptable.
If that is your value system then there is no point in arguing with you.

SeanW wrote: »

I wonder if shoplifters try the "but motorists are KILLING people" defense in court?

Says the guy who defends all bad behaviour with "but we kill fewer people than in other countries!" :rolleyes:

Stark wrote: »

Says the guy who defends all bad behaviour with "but we kill fewer people than in other countries!" :rolleyes:

All bad behaviour?

Really? Because I don't remember saying that everything all motorists do is perfect all the time. I simply put some of the hysteria into context.

Or was this another lie? :rolleyes:

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Here we go again, defining every anti social activity short of killing as acceptable.
If that is your value system then there is no point in arguing with you.

My value system is that we should treat different risks differently. We treat paracetemol and morphine differently. We treat Swiss Army penknives and AK47 rifles differently. We can and should treat 1-3 tonne vehicles doing 20-150 kmph that kill 2 or 3 people each and 10-20 kg bikes doing 10-20 kmph that kill 1 person each decade differently.

SeanW wrote: »

I wonder if shoplifters try the "but motorists are KILLING people" defense in court?

The shoplifters could try the 'I was blinded by the sun' excuse and see if it gets them off scott free, like this driver who killed a cyclist.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/man-found-not-guilty-of-dangerous-driving-causing-death-of-cyclist-in-kerry-908096.html

SeanW wrote: »

Welcome to literally every country on the planet.

RIP to the cyclist. Not sure how this changes the proven fact that Irish roads are among the safest in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Nor the conclusion which must inevitably be drawn, that Irish motorists are generally safe.

By your own safety metric (ie people killed in collision with ____ ), Irish cyclists are extremely safe. Doesn't stop you going on and on with your nonsense generalisations every 5 minutes.

Podge_irl wrote: »

Cyclists have no standard way of having the slightest clue what speed they are cycling at? Even GPS devices are somewhat unreliable on this front. Its fairly obvious why speed limits don't apply to pedal cycles - it is fairly rare to even be able to break them and there is no way to know if you are.

Any modern GPS will be very reliable on this front, unless you're driving or cycling in a heavily wooded area. More accurate than a car's speedo, in fact.

magicbastarder wrote: »

cool. free GPS for all cyclists. possibly unreliable in city centre conditions, so probably not legally enforceable.
this is not even a (literal) $50 solution to a $5 problem, it's a $50 solution to a 5c problem.

Dude, you've posted about cycling at very precisely measuered high speeds, so you're not included in the offer. Sorry.

SeanW wrote: »

Welcome to literally every country on the planet.

RIP to the cyclist. Not sure how this changes the proven fact that Irish roads are among the safest in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Nor the conclusion which must inevitably be drawn, that Irish motorists are generally safe.

The point would be to demonstrate that the easiest way to kill someone and walk out of Court free is to do it from behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

Duckjob wrote: »

By your own safety metric (ie people killed in collision with ____ ), Irish cyclists are extremely safe. Doesn't stop you going on and on with your nonsense generalisations every 5 minutes.

Actually no, that's your sides' argument. "Horrible evil motorists KILLING people" - except they're not.

And "killing people" is not the only reason civilised societies regulate things. When was the last time you bought your favourite tipple from the off-license after 10PM? The streets were not running red with the blood of people killed by people who bought a few cans at 10:05, yet there is enforced regulation. You're not allowed to shoplift, cheat on your taxes, "tag" a wall with graffiti or do a wide variety of other things that don't kill.

As to my "generalisations" they are correct:
1) That cyclists have a problem with motorists far beyond anything reasonable.
Well we've literally seen demands from cyclists that motorists should be forced to get out of their cars at every junction to press a "beg button" to be considered for a green light. As to the number of cyclists who responded with anything like "whoa ... that's a little extreme, I'm out" well that number rhymes with "Nero". And that poster is just one in a long line of people with very extreme views.
2) That cyclists spend far too much time playing zoom-zoom on the footpath and forcing pedestrians to negotiate with them red lights.
That can be proven by being a pedestrian in Ireland's major cities for any length of time.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The point would be to demonstrate that the easiest way to kill someone and walk out of Court free is to do it from behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

Intent matters. That's why manslaughter tends to be treated less seriously than murder, sometimes even attempted murder. And it's likely that the jury was influenced by some of the background to the case, including witness statements, dash cam footage, driver history and so on relating to the motorist in the preceding minutes.

But it does underscore one sad, but unavoidable reality. Which is that human error is an ever present risk. As long as imperfect human beings have been doing things, they've made errors, and that will continue until the end of human life on Earth. However, it does not change the fact that Irish motorists have done a good job at managing those risks - as borne out by the statistics showing that Ireland road planning and usage is best practice.

breezy1985 wrote: »

I bought a very accurate speedometer from Halfords for about €10 and I never cycle without it as I hate not knowing my speed. But like with everything with bikes how could you enforce mandatory use with a LL the children on bikes as well as adults

I actually agree with the cyclists on this one. As far as I am concerned, cyclists are entitled to play zoom-zoom as much as they want - as long as they're off the footpath.

SeanW wrote: »

Actually no, that's your sides' argument. "Horrible evil motorists KILLING people" - except they're not.

Strawman
Generalisation
WhatAbout
Deflection

Dearie-me, You really can't help yourself with the strawmanning, can you ?

I'm guessing you're referring to another posters posts, not mine. Still not sure that poster ever referred to motorists being "horrible" or "evil", but in any case, you can have that argument with him not me.

I'm just commenting because I don't think I've ever seen a poster so diligent in individualising wrongdoings by people in cars, while at the same time, so determined to generalise wrongdroings by people on bikes and view everybody who uses a bike as a single homogenous group called "cyclists". That intention bleeds through on every single post you make.


FWIW I actually don't think motorists (taken as a group) are any better or worse behaved than cyclists are (as a group). This supposition tends to be strongly supported by many studies from all around the world which show that different road groups law-break at about the same ratio. Many people on here seem unable to accept this simple piece of data, and prefer to dismiss those studies as fake news in preference of their own bias.

What I also believe is that the consequences when bad motorist behavior goes wrong are on a different scale to those when bad cyclist behavior goes wrong, and that that should inform the allocation of the gardai's limited resourced in order to have a maximum impact on road safety.

kenmm wrote: »

Perfectly reasonable suggestion, I agree. No one disputed it, because when one cyclist speaks, they speak for ALL cyclists.

”We are the cyclists.
Lower your windows and surrender your cars.
We will add your automotive and technological distinctiveness to our own.
Your roads will adapt to service us.
Resistance is futile.”

Along Upper Churchtown Road near the Bottle Tower, this black Audi with heavily tinted windows passed me with a large tablet, bigger than an iPad mounted from the dash, in front of the passenger seat. There was video playing on the tablet as they drove.



Down the road at Supervalu Churchtown, this lady passed me holding her phone at the bottom of the steering wheel.


So yeah, four in ten minutes, but no-one died this time, though mobile phone use is identified by the RSA as one of the major problems on the road. UK police have identified phone use as the direct cause of a substantial number of road deaths. I suspect that AGS investigations aren't quite so thorough on detecting this problem.

I had to get the bus into work today. Several cyclists on the segregated cycle lane at North Strand, obviously unaware it's a total and utter death trap, but they all seemed to manage to avoid the spike pit, poison darts and chaos death murder machines that lurk awaiting cyclists who dare to use it! Walked from George's Street to the Green, and watched incredulous as - once again - I saw a cyclist approach me cycling the wrong way down one-way Stephen Street, using his phone, ignoring the car edging out from Drury Street and making both the car and me wait (he was not the fastest of cyclists!) Nice, polite, car driver didn't blast cyclist out of it, and waved me on to cross before entering the street.

The cyclist did have a mask on, so did not spread any Covid, even if he was oblivious to the dangers of cycling while using a phone and going the wrong way down a one-way street.

I don't have any photos that don't show what I claim I could see, unfortunately. I should be more prepared.

Tea drinker wrote: »

Fair play, that's unacceptable behaviour on the drivers parts.
I oft take that road past the goat, and it is just past that junction going down the hill, that the cyclist emerged (right hand side of the road) from his house to stop in the middle of the road, without properly checking it was safe to do so. A garbage truck was barrelling towards him in his lane, and appeared to have no intent to stop. If I hadn't stopped to let the cyclist pull across my lane to safety he would have been killed outside his own house.
He was doubly lucky I stopped as according to boards I'm very unobservant, and when I do observe things it's because I'm a racist bigot. :pac:


You think he is a ? :eek:
;-)

But if he pulled out into the the middle of the road then it his now his lane not the trucks so the truck is at fault for rear ending him. Replace cyclist with car and who would be at fault

breezy1985 wrote: »

But if he pulled out into the the middle of the road then it his now his lane not the trucks so the truck is at fault for rear ending him. Replace cyclist with car and who would be at fault

No I am going to disagree, you don't understand -he pulled out in front of traffic. If a car pulled out into the middle of the road would you expect a cyclist to do a stoppie or cycle out of control into the the car "because the car has the lane" ? You (generic motorist / cyclist) cannot pull out and cause emergency breaking for any road user. but I fail to see why you are bringing in the "racist" issue of cyclist / motorist. It's a human who would have hurt, regardless of what mode of transport. In this case, he was a cycling, and did so without due care, as there was a truck bearing down. You can't just assume people will stop. I don't know what the garbage driver was doing, he was an idiot.

BTW on same road closer to o sheas have seen a cyclist tip a car that was pulled out in very good time into the yellow box to turn right. The car "had the lane" , but cyclist still performed a controlled hit on the car to show he was offended at it's presence. Ah sure that's people.

Tea drinker wrote: »

BTW on same road closer to o sheas have seen a cyclist tip a car that was pulled out in very good time into the yellow box to turn right. The car "had the lane" , but cyclist still performed a controlled hit on the car to show he was offended at it's presence. Ah sure that's people.

You do know how yellow boxes are supposed to work?

Tea drinker wrote: »

No I am going to disagree, you don't understand -he pulled out in front of traffic. If a car pulled out into the middle of the road would you expect a cyclist to do a stoppie or cycle out of control into the the car "because the car has the lane" ? You (generic motorist / cyclist) cannot pull out and cause emergency breaking for any road user. but I fail to see why you are bringing in the "racist" issue of cyclist / motorist. It's a human who would have hurt, regardless of what mode of transport. In this case, he was a cycling, and did so without due care, as there was a truck bearing down. You can't just assume people will stop. I don't know what the garbage driver was doing, he was an idiot.

BTW on same road closer to o sheas have seen a cyclist tip a car that was pulled out in very good time into the yellow box to turn right. The car "had the lane" , but cyclist still performed a controlled hit on the car to show he was offended at it's presence. Ah sure that's people.

So you had to do an emergency stop for a bike that wasnt in your lane but the truck kept moving and would have hit the cyclist if you didnt stop. If the cyclist had time to pull out stop and start again to change lane into your lane then the truck wasnt really that close to him at all was he.

The whole physics of your story is BS