Cycling on paths and other cycling issues (updated title)

Spook_ie wrote: »

You would think then that if most cyclists are drivers perhaps they should be more aware of the need for cyclists to follow the traffic regulations and to even use hand signals!

Because the 98% of drivers that break urban speed limits drivers demonstrate their awareness of traffic regulations?

Spook_ie wrote: »

You would think then that if most cyclists are drivers perhaps they should be more aware of the need for cyclists to follow the traffic regulations and to even use hand signals!

Your post is Trumpian, high vis/day glo, whatever your turn on at the moment, has nothing to do with traffic regulations or law. Which you know. And why the hell are you now introducing hand signals? Are you that bored and sad for a row you need to add additional rubbish?


We're sick of telling you this, I've pointed it out to you, amongst the "cyclists" you have issues with there's those who've done an advanced driving course, more qualified than any PSV driver, I think there's a HGV licenced driver, and a previous Garda driver, although I think he has the good sense not to get involved in this crap.

I've only got a full clean licence for over 20 years, so what do I know.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except that cyclists are supposed to be on roads, while joggers are not supposed to be on cycle lanes.

Cyclists aren't supposed to be on footpaths either, but guess what ...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where specifically did I justify cyclists incursions on footpaths please?

You spent the whole thread screeching "bUt MoToRiStS bReAk MuH sPeEd LiMiTs" in a thinly veiled attempt to deflect from cyclists and their profilgate lawbreaking. You may not have explicitly justified it, but did so much what-about-ery that it was basically the same thing.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But it is fascinating to see your efforts to constantly downplay the significance of speeding drivers, relative to your efforts to big up the significance of cyclists on pavements or cyclists breaking red lights. The evidence is fairly clear as to which category of road users results in two or three deaths a week.
This is what leads me to conclude that this isn’t a safety issue at all for you. It is just your own personal bias, banging on for ten years here about the dangers of cyclists, ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.

I freely admit to having a "bias" against sanctimonious hypocrites. You got me there

As are cyclists – you remember that article I shared with you a couple of pages back? It’s hard to accept your claim that most motorists aren’t muppets, given the evidence of widespread speeding, widespread mobile phone use, endemic red light jumping by motorists.

I'm fairly sure I referred to the majority of motorists as not being muppets. The majority of motorists do not drink and drive. The majority of motorists do not take the piss with speed. (I'm ignoring your 98% figure given the reasons outlined earlier). Fairly sure I accepted that some motorists are muppets.

The only thing it proves is that, just like the smoking ban nearly 20 years ago, no country has really taken this seriously to date.

Where to start? :eek: Firstly, the smoking ban and road safety are entirely different problems. Secondly, I find it difficult to believe that nowhere in the world do people care about road safety? That's a really big claim!

As previously explained, I’m dumping on Irish motorists because I live in Ireland and this is an Irish discussion board. I’m not singling out Irish motorists as relatively good or bad internationally. The real issue is the 2 or 3 people killed each week by Irish motorists.

It’s not an either/or choice. It is possible to drive to get around, deliver to factories and worksites without killing people, if drivers will start actually complying with the law.

I've proven that your dumping on Irish motorists is unwarranted. As to the bolded statement, that is simply not true. You have provided no evidence for it, I have provided strong evidence against it.

Could you give any examples of recent road deaths that were unavoidable, ones that wouldn’t have been avoided by better driving standards, or better medical checks for drivers? Or even hypothetical scenarios of unavoidable road deaths? What percentage of our 150-ish road deaths each year are truly unavoidable, do you think?

As to the percentage, I suspect the majority were unavoidable. I base that view on both Irish history and global context. I suspect that the vast majority of avoidable fatalities are actually being avoided. We have motorways to safely accommodate fast long distance traffic, and our culture no longer glorifies driving home from the pub after a bender. That's avoiding a lot of accidents.

As to specific incidents, the two relatives I referred to earlier, I suspect both of those cases were unavoidable, though naturally I can't be sure.

Spook_ie wrote: »

And good for you, but of course logically, if a large percentage of cyclists also drive, then surely a large percentage of Andrews speeding drivers and non hands free phone users must be cyclists too, go figure!

Well, if 98% of drivers break urban speed limits and the majority of cyclists are also drivers, then it must follow that the majority of cyclists are also speeders. The bastards :rolleyes:

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Read my posts. I already outlined it in detail.

Anywat, this thread demonstrates one thing, there's a lot of self entitled assholes in the world who plain and simple won't make any effort to facilitate others.

Pedestrians, use the path and stay out of the cycle lanes and off the roads where possible.

Cyclists, use the lanes where possible, stay out of the pedestrian areas and show some consideration to drivers.

Drivers, use your mirrors, accept that cyclists have rights too and need space. don't park blocking cycle lanes and paths.

Now, can't we all just get along?

You posted a link to the law that states cyclist are legally required to use cycle lanes on a pedestrianised street or on a contra flow lane. It's perfectly legal for cyclists to cycle on the road. Yes we can all get along... now that we have to adhere to social distancing, maybe now we'll get 2 meter space from motorists when overtaking.

1 sheep2 wrote: »

But what about the person recording the video - presumably the father? Does being in the company of your child justify cycling on the path?

Yep. I've no issue cycling on the path with my son.

07Lapierre wrote: »

Could be the mother? Cycling on the pavement is illegal,regardless of age or gender. Using a phone while cycling is also not recommended. Parking a car on the pavement is also illegal and the car that passes by is probably speeding! Did I miss anything? And I did say "call the cops!"

Lol, so you show mock outrage at the child on the footpath, which almost anyone is happy to permit. I point out that the child is not alone and is in fact accompanied by an adult. And you then immediately widen the debate to include cars. You people are so slippery!

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Yep. I've no issue cycling on the path with my son.

No issues, have you not?! How lovely. A fine role model for your son.

1 sheep2 wrote: »

Lol, so you show mock outrage at the child on the footpath, which almost anyone is happy to permit.

Lol yeah I know..but hey, The cars are the reason they are cycling on the pavement. Believe it or not, they would much prefer not to cycle on the pavement.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Read my posts. I already outlined it in detail.

Anywat, this thread demonstrates one thing, there's a lot of self entitled assholes in the world who plain and simple won't make any effort to facilitate others.

Pedestrians, use the path and stay out of the cycle lanes and off the roads where possible.

Cyclists, use the lanes where possible, stay out of the pedestrian areas and show some consideration to drivers.

Drivers, use your mirrors, accept that cyclists have rights too and need space. don't park blocking cycle lanes and paths.

Now, can't we all just get along?

Could you clarify what specifically you mean by 'show some consideration to drivers'? Are we talking doffing of hats here or is it the usual oul 'get out of my way cos my journey is obviously more important than yours'?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Nah I think you did say you'd basically run them over if they didn't get out of your way unless they were doing it for a singular reason.



EDIT

Raises the question of course of if they were giving room to a cyclist on the footpath would you still be intent on making them move out of your way, them being a vulnerable road user and all that entails?

It's of course interesting to note the difference between what I "basically said" (your words) and what I actually said. There's that nice warm reassuring feeling again.