Cycling/Walking around the city

Crumbs868

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I can see at least a dozen threads on the current first page of the Galway City forum that I have not posted in. Maybe you have posted in them -- and why wouldn't you?

Is there any reason why either of us should, or should not, read and contribute to any particular thread?

The "anti-car" accusation is a red herring that keeps coming up, over and over again. I've answered it over and over again.

Like I said your posting style puts people off posting, in all the years(5+) I've been reading the Galway City thread you seem to dominate all the infrastructure / traffic threads with the same smug (South Park episode?) attitude and not once have I ever seen you back down (are you really that perfect?). Your replies just get longer and longer until the other poster gets frustrated with the selective quoting and moves on.

I get that you are passionate but tone it down a bit. Other posters deserve to contribute without their position being drowned out by 'I'm right you are wrong' replies


Another expample is the post below, if another poster posted to say that car drivers spend more in the retail sector you would be in like a shot demanding to see the source and evidence that the poll was up to national election standards otherwise you don't accept it.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In Dublin City, people who walk, cycle or take the bus spend far more than motorists do in the retail sector. There is no reason why this cannot be replicated in Galway.

pmasterson95

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Like I said your posting style puts people off posting, in all the years(5+) I've been reading the Galway City thread you seem to dominate all the infrastructure / traffic threads with the same smug (South Park episode?) attitude and not once have I ever seen you back down (are you really that perfect?). Your replies just get longer and longer until the other poster gets frustrated with the selective quoting and moves on.

I get that you are passionate but tone it down a bit. Other posters deserve to contribute without their position being drowned out by 'I'm right you are wrong' replies


Another expample is the post below, if another poster posted to say that car drivers spend more in the retail sector you would be in like a shot demanding to see the source and evidence that the poll was up to national election standards otherwise you don't accept it.

Its regular in AH. People mount their soapbox with an agenda and a small amount of stats that suits their agenda and away they go. Anything their stats can counter they quote and shoot down. If its not supported by the selected stats or detrimental to argument just don't acknowledge it. Its what children do aswell. Just accept what suits deny all else. It does kill discussion.

Iwannahurl

Camilo Tight Shrew wrote: »

Strange then how business owners are constantly calling for more parking and cheaper parking as lack of it is effecting their business. You will hear it regularly discussed on the radio particularly on the business show on newstalk on saturday mornings. City centre business suffer badly when car use in the city is curtailed, they basically lose the thousands of customers who would travel in from outside the city by car. Look at the boost business get when their is just a few hours free parking in the run up to christmas or how people chose sunday to go into town as its free to park.

Delicia wrote: »

Where is the evidence for this? I'm not sure that I can believe that a pedestrian or cyclist can carry as much as the boot of a car?

Having worked in Dublin I know most workers in the city centre travel by bus due to the prohibitive cost of parking

I missed these posts earlier. Many if not most Local Authorities seem to be in thrall to the business sector, and it appears they are locked in to a car-dependent economy of their own making. Local Authorities, presumably helped or perhaps even forced by national policy in past decades, have allowed a situation to develop whereby they are heavily dependent on revenues directly and indirectly derived from car use and car dependence. These revenue streams include parking charges and fines. It also explains why such a large proportion of "parking" fines every year are actually for Motor Tax offences, because revenue from that source goes into the Local Government Fund which finances Local Authorities (we'll draw a veil over the fact that a large chunk of that money now goes to Irish Water).

Because of the abolition of domestic rates, to buy an election decades ago, Local Authorities were for a long time also highly dependent on commercial rates. This means that the business sector has had huge influence on land use policy and transport planning. If business interests want cars streaming into town, Local Authorities' response is to tip their cap and say "how many would you like?". This is why, for example, Galway Chamber is in favour of a "bypass". They don't want cars out of the city. They want certain traffic out of the city, so that they can bring more in and keep the tills ringing.

Unfortunately they are shooting themselves in the foot, and everybody else's while they're at it. In February the National Transport Authority reported that over half of all retail spend in Dublin City Centre comes from people arriving on public transport, with a further 24% coming from walkers and cyclists. According to the NTA's research, car-based shoppers account for only €1 in every €5 spent in Dublin City Centre.

The undeniable reality is that far more bus users, walkers and cyclists can be fitted into urban centres than can be accommodated in cars. Even if these groups spent much less per capita than car-based shoppers, the fact that they are a much more efficient use of space means that encouraging more of them will generate more revenue for traders, by sheer weight of numbers if nothing else. It's beyond me why the business sector in Galway can't see "the elephant in the room that's staring them in the face" (to quote something I read recently) and are stuck in their old ways even though those ways are clearly failing. Another key point is that traffic-reduced and traffic-calmed urban centres are far more attractive places to be for everyone. I was at a meeting recently where a Councillor (maybe they are getting the message?) reported that businesses around Cross Street saw an increase in sales after the introduction of one simple measure: placing flower boxes in a spot where cars had been illegally parked all the time up to then.

zarquon wrote: »

Agreed, there are many idiots behind the wheel of a car. Likewise there are plenty of obnoxious cyclists too. Ask them to obey a red light, not cycle on a footpath or not salmon cycle when prohibited and watch their reaction to the sacrilege too.

Neither group is faultless in this dear city of ours. I do however observe a much higher percentage of cyclists breaking the laws of the roads than motorists. I wonder why that is? Imo, it is due to a lack of enforcement of the rules against cyclists. Simply put, people will break the law when they know they will get away with it and that's what cyclists do. If motorists knew they would also get away with breaking the laws there would be a lot more flouting of the rules too.

As a cyclist, pdestrian and motorist I obey the RoTR, respect red lights, don't do illegal things on footpaths etc.

There are far more motorists breaking the law than there are cyclists breaking the law. This would be true even if 100% of cyclists were breaking the law, which is not the case. In any event, a half-eejit in a car is far more dangerous than the most obnoxious cyclist, for obvious reasons.

I'm blue in the face trying to get An Garda Siochana and Council Wardens to enforce traffic and parking regulations. I may as well be talking to the wall, as other posters here will testify.

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Like I said your posting style puts people off posting, in all the years(5+) I've been reading the Galway City thread you seem to dominate all the infrastructure / traffic threads with the same smug (South Park episode?) attitude and not once have I ever seen you back down (are you really that perfect?). Your replies just get longer and longer until the other poster gets frustrated with the selective quoting and moves on.

I get that you are passionate but tone it down a bit. Other posters deserve to contribute without their position being drowned out by 'I'm right you are wrong' replies

Another expample is the post below, if another poster posted to say that car drivers spend more in the retail sector you would be in like a shot demanding to see the source and evidence that the poll was up to national election standards otherwise you don't accept it.

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Its regular in AH. People mount their soapbox with an agenda and a small amount of stats that suits their agenda and away they go. Anything their stats can counter they quote and shoot down. If its not supported by the selected stats or detrimental to argument just don't acknowledge it. Its what children do aswell. Just accept what suits deny all else. It does kill discussion.

It's fairly straightforward really, and has nothing to do with smugness or perfection (thanks all the same! ). I try not to make claims, especially contentious ones, unless I can back them up, which is actually a rule in some Boards' charters. In other words, if I quote an authoritative source -- say a research report or a policy document -- then if there is something wrong it's with the source not with my reference to it. In other words, if you want to argue attack the evidence not the poster quoting the evidence.

The NTA's survey about retail spend in Dublin is a case in point. I'm only quoting what they reported. If you think it's wrong, or not applicable to Galway, then rip their survey to shreds and show why it's not relevant.

Delicia

Iwannahurl wrote: »

In other words, if you want to argue attack the evidence not the poster quoting the evidence.

The NTA's survey about retail spend in Dublin is a case in point. I'm only quoting what they reported. If you think it's wrong, or not applicable to Galway, then rip their survey to shreds and show why it's not relevant.

nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Dublin_City_Centre_Shopper_Survey_Report_MB_1.pdf
I won't rip their survey but I think your interpretation is questionable. The main mode of shoppers in Dublin is by bus - 42% followed by car 19%. Bikes are 4%. The average spend for a car is €70, bus €40 & bike €20. Makes sense - that's what you can carry.

Iwannahurl

Delicia wrote: »

nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Dublin_City_Centre_Shopper_Survey_Report_MB_1.pdf
I won't rip their survey but I think your interpretation is questionable. The main mode of shoppers in Dublin is by bus - 42% followed by car 19%. Bikes are 4%. The average spend for a car is €70, bus €40 & bike €20. Makes sense - that's what you can carry.

It's the NTA's interpretation, not mine.

Those travelling by car tend to spend more than shoppers travelling by other modes. However, there are more people travelling on public transport, on foot and by bike. Nothing revelatory about that. The key message, in my view, is that even if non-car-based shoppers spend less, the fact that far higher numbers can be accommodated than those in cars means that there is a good business case for promoting public transport, cycling and walking. This is in addition to all the other benefits, such as enhanced road safety, improved health outcomes, better air quality, a more pleasant public realm, reduced noise, lower CO2 emissions and so on.

MarysCurtins

Iwannahurl wrote: »

One travel mode has had priority for decades. It's long past time to redress the balance.

The Council's failure to sort out transport and commuting issues over decades is a major part of the problem.

People who regularly walk, cycle or take the bus are part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Agree with that but like it or not cars are also part of the solution. People will always choose to use them no matter what plans are in place so they need to be catered for too but you don't seem to have any interest in that and won't entertain the notion.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There are far more motorists breaking the law than there are cyclists breaking the law. This would be true even if 100% of cyclists were breaking the law, which is not the case.

By virtue of the fact there are more of them. That's like saying are far more Chinese people breaking the law than there are Irish people breaking the law. What percentage of motorists break the law? and what percentage of cyclists break the law?

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

There are far more motorists breaking the law than there are cyclists breaking the law. This would be true even if 100% of cyclists were breaking the law

99% of cyclists break the multiple traffic laws every single time they cycles denying this really is just ignoring the blatantly obvious. When I cycle I ignore multiple rules which I wouldn't in a car for the simple fact there is absolutely not reason or incentive to obey them. Until there is enforcement of the ROTR for cyclists this will continue.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

It's the NTA's interpretation, not mine.

Its not really relavent as Galway isn't Dublin though and they are very different scenarios. Dublin is the capital city and will have far more people living within walking walking distance of the main city centre retail areas add to that the large numbers of people who will be visiting for the weekend and staying in hotels in the area etc then you will have more people on foot.

Galway will have a lot of people travelling in from the country side (who wont come without being able to park close to their destination), people from area outside the city which are too far to walk/cycle and impractical to use public transport as (and this applies to the above too) shopping in Galway usually involves visiting a number of places with different retail parks, the city centre, the shopping centres etc.

I know that I spend far more money and spend more often when I have the car. Doing any meaningful amount of shopping without being able to drop it back to the car in stages so you aren't carrying it around is impractical and simply not possible if you want to buy heavy items etc. If I'm shopping on foot I will often either buy the item again when I have the car with me or travel to a retail park which also has a branch of the shop and where parking is free and easy to find.

There is absolutely no doubt about it that restricting parking (any more than it already is) and keeping parking costs as hight as they are never mind increasing them will lead to the city centre turning into a ghost town.

Again I will refer to cork city which as a very large number of boarded up shops etc on main shopping streets. Failure to provide adequate parking and the cost of parking which is pushing people to shop in out of town retail parks is almost always cited as the main reason for this as people just don't see going into the city as a viable option. Of course this well accepted fact will go in one ear and out the other as far as your concerned and you will stick to peddling your own agenda and making claims which are the exact opposite to what is actually the case.

zarquon

MarysCurtins wrote: »

Agree with that but like it or not cars are also part of the solution. People will always choose to use them no matter what plans are in place so they need to be catered for too but you don't seem to have any interest in that and won't entertain the notion.



By virtue of the fact there are more of them. That's like saying are far more Chinese people breaking the law than there are Irish people breaking the law. What percentage of motorists break the law? and what percentage of cyclists break the law?

Precisely, i specifically used the word percentage rather than number. Of course there are greater number of motorists breaking the rules due to greater nunbers of motorists however iwh's ascertain that cyclists are more law abiding on the road is complete bullsh1t.Anyone with a pair of eyes in their head can see this on a daily basis. Just hang around seamus quirke road or quincentenniel bridge to see cyclists zoom through every red light, up on footpaths and cycling the wrong way. Its a pandemic near nuig. Of course there is no point asking for meaningful statistics on cyclists as there is no enforcement of the rotr for cyclists and no statistical penalties.

Same crap happens on the prom, try being a pedestrian and having to avoid the weaving cyclists on the footpath.

Of course IWH will now counter this with statistics which are still bullsh1t because there is enforcement of the law for cyclists and no penalties hence stats are useless.

Lets not forget the next hypocritical retort which will be "its not cyclists fault that they break the law, its due to a lack of infrastructure. Cyclists are only law breakers due to council, government, etc"

Of couse the second oft quoted point is true, the city council needs to remove red lights from all cycle lane paths. How dare they priotise pedestrian safety over cyclists. Once again cyclists are treated like second class citizens.

On a seperate note due to the behaviour of certain posters weshould all start requesting that cycling related threads be moved to the religion forum. As a transportation agnostic i would have no problem with this

Crumbs868

MarysCurtins wrote: »

By virtue of the fact there are more of them. That's like saying are far more Chinese people breaking the law than there are Irish people breaking the law. What percentage of motorists break the law? and what percentage of cyclists break the law?

The stat flexed this way suits his argument so we need to accept it or face the potential of 5 by 1300 word replies

zarquon

Crumbs868 wrote: »

The stat flexed this way suits his argument so we need to accept it or face the potential of 5 by 1300 word replies

Cue a 5000 word essay now showing that Chinese motorists are statistically the most dangerous and greatest law breakers!

Redhairedguy

zarquon wrote: »

Just hang around seamus quirke road or quincentenniel bridge to see cyclists zoom through every red light, up on footpaths and cycling the wrong way.

Especially since yesterday I saw three spandex-clad cyclists abreast nonchalantly go straight through a red light, causing a Nissan Almera turning right to brake so suddenly that the little tyke inside cracked the back of his head off his car seat.

Not to mention that they were ignoring the cycle lane and taking up the bus/taxi lane where a bus was fruitlessly trying to proceed efficiently.

?Cee?view

zarquon wrote: »

On a seperate note due to the behaviour of certain posters weshould all start requesting that cycling related threads be moved to the religion forum. As a transportation agnostic i would have no problem with this

:D:D

zarquon

Redhairedguy wrote: »

Especially since yesterday I saw three spandex-clad cyclists abreast nonchalantly go straight through a red light, causing a Nissan Almera turning right to brake so suddenly that the little tyke inside cracked the back of his head off his car seat.

Not to mention that they were ignoring the cycle lane and taking up the bus/taxi lane where a bus was fruitlessly trying to proceed efficiently.

That simply cannot be true. No spandex wearing cyclist is obnoxious enough to do something like, just like there are no obnoxious cyclists in this forum.

Remember the almera was a much greater danger to the cyclists anyway and they only broke the law as the council dont have 10metre wide lanes in place with no traffic light obstructions.

Stop picking on the cyclists, its perfectly legal for them to obstruct buses if they wish to do so. Once again cyclists are being treated like second class citizens over public transport

ben.schlomo

zarquon wrote: »

That simply cannot be true. No spandex wearing cyclist is obnoxious enough to do something like, just like there are no obnoxious cyclists in this forum.

Remember the almera was a much greater danger to the cyclists anyway and they only broke the law as the council dont have 10metre wide lanes in place with no traffic light obstructions.

Stop picking on the cyclists, its perfectly legal for them to obstruct buses if they wish to do so. Once again cyclists are being treated like second class citizens over public transport

Really and truly the Almera driver should have been walking!!

pmasterson95

Redhairedguy wrote: »

Especially since yesterday I saw three spandex-clad cyclists abreast nonchalantly go straight through a red light, causing a Nissan Almera turning right to brake so suddenly that the little tyke inside cracked the back of his head off his car seat.

Not to mention that they were ignoring the cycle lane and taking up the bus/taxi lane where a bus was fruitlessly trying to proceed efficiently.

Sure that is the drivers fault. In a true utopian society ruled by cyclists cars are banned therefore that car should not be on the road. That car being on the road is a choice of the driver and any consequences of that choice are his fault. Cyclists in Swaziland have the statistical proof of this.


Thats my guess at the response thats on its way!

Iwannahurl

MarysCurtins wrote: »

1. Agree with that but like it or not cars are also part of the solution. People will always choose to use them no matter what plans are in place so they need to be catered for too but you don't seem to have any interest in that and won't entertain the notion.

By virtue of the fact there are more of them. That's like saying are far more Chinese people breaking the law than there are Irish people breaking the law. What percentage of motorists break the law? and what percentage of cyclists break the law?

1. That's just a variant on the bog-standard "anti-car/anti-motorist" jibe. I've addressed this point over and over and over again.

2. If there were far more Chinese people in Ireland breaking the law than Irish people breaking the law, the comparison might be valid.

The crucial point -- in reality, not in hypothetical Chinese -- is that motorists are not only more numerous but also the nature and extent of their law-breaking is potentially much more serious, for obvious reasons. Therefore the biggest problem, and therefore the highest priority, is in enforcing those road traffic laws which will have the greatest impact. Are we to have AGS treating, say, drink-driving and cycling three-abreast with equal seriousness?

I don't condone any violations of road traffic law, but I know which kind of law-breaking poses the greater risk. As I have already said, I'm blue in the face trying to get AGS to enforce road traffic law. If they're not going to do anything effective about motorists' speeding, red-light-breaking, dangerous overtaking and dangerous/irresponsible parking, what hope have we that they're even going to notice unlit cyclists on footpaths?

Trenton Rhythmic Remote wrote: »

When I cycle I ignore multiple rules

Well there you go. So by his/her own admission Trenton Rhythmic Remote is a serial violator of road traffic laws. I seem to recall you also justify the illegal obstruction of footpaths by motorists. I wonder what you've been saying about speeding?

For the record, I try my best not to commit offences on the road, if for no other reason than to save myself from embarrassment. Heck, I even use hand signals when cycling, and I have a bell on my bike. Beatification beckons. My kids slag me for driving like a nun, and when it comes to parking legally versus parking conveniently they shout at me "go on, break the law just this once!"

zarquon wrote: »

1. Same crap happens on the prom, try being a pedestrian and having to avoid the weaving cyclists on the footpath. Of course IWH will now counter this with statistics which are still bullsh1t because there is enforcement of the law for cyclists and no penalties hence stats are useless.

2. Lets not forget the next hypocritical retort which will be "its not cyclists fault that they break the law, its due to a lack of infrastructure. Cyclists are only law breakers due to council, government, etc"

1. I'll counter it with an anecdote. Several months ago I was speaking to an elderly lady who gets very annoyed at, and is actually afraid of, footpath cyclists. She walks the Prom for the good of her health, but is very nervous (based on her own and others' experience) of being knocked down and breaking her hip. She told me she encountered two Community Gardai cycling on the Prom. When she gave out to them for cycling on the footpath they said, "where do you expect us to cycle?" Welcome to Galway, Ireland. Have you been here long?

2. What can I say? Back to the future...

Redhairedguy wrote: »

Especially since yesterday I saw three spandex-clad cyclists abreast nonchalantly go straight through a red light, causing a Nissan Almera turning right to brake so suddenly that the little tyke inside cracked the back of his head off his car seat.

Not to mention that they were ignoring the cycle lane and taking up the bus/taxi lane where a bus was fruitlessly trying to proceed efficiently.

Were you one of them, Trenton Rhythmic Remote? Do you wear Spandex?

Crumbs868

Groundhog Day

So yet again another infastructure / commuting / Galway life thread has become useless due to IWH driving (!) it off course into the usual car v bike argument. How many times have we seen that bus image in different threads?

The content of this thread is no different to the other 20+ threads you have contributed to in the last 6 months. Might as well merge them all as content bears has no relationship with titles.

pmasterson95

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. That's just a variant on the bog-standard "anti-car/anti-motorist" jibe. I've addressed this point over and over and over again.

2. If there were far more Chinese people in Ireland breaking the law than Irish people breaking the law, the comparison might be valid.

The crucial point -- in reality, not in hypothetical Chinese -- is that motorists are not only more numerous but also the nature and extent of their law-breaking is potentially much more serious, for obvious reasons. Therefore the biggest problem, and their the highest priority, is in enforcing those road traffic laws which will have the greatest impact. Are we to have AGS treating, say, drink-driving and cycling three-abreast with equal seriousness?

I don't condone any violations of road traffic law, but I know which kind of law-breaking poses the greater risk. As I have already said, I'm blue in the face trying to get AGS to enforce road traffic law. If they're not going to do anything effective about motorists' speeding, red-light-breaking, dangerous overtaking and dangerous/irresponsible parking, what hope have we that they're even going to notice unlit cyclists on footpaths?




Well there you go. So by his/her own admission Trenton Rhythmic Remote is a serial violator of road traffic laws. I seem to recall you also justify the illegal obstruction of footpaths by motorists. I wonder what you've been saying about speeding?

For the record, I try my best not to commit offences on the road, if for no other reason than to save myself from embarrassment. Heck, I even use hand signals when cycling, and I have a bell on my bike. Beatification beckons. My kids slag me for driving like a nun, and when it comes to parking legally versus parking legally they shout at me "go on, break the law just this once!"




1. I'll counter it with an anecdote. Several months ago I was speaking to an elderly lady who gets very annoyed, and is actually afraid, of footpath cyclists. She walks the Prom for the good of her health, but is very nervous (based on her own and others' experience) of being knocked down and breaking her hip. She told me she encountered two Community Gardai cycling on the Prom. When she gave out to them for cycling on the footpath they said, "where do you expect us to cycle?" Welcome to Galway, Ireland. Have you been here long?

2. What can I say? Back to the future...




Were you one of them, Trenton Rhythmic Remote? Do you wear Spandex?

One of your posts claiming your own car doesnt cancel the 20+ where you demonise cars and advocate disincentivising them.

Iwannahurl

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Groundhog Day

So yet again another infastructure / commuting / Galway life thread has become useless due to IWH driving (!) it off course into the usual car v bike argument. How many times have we seen that bus image in different threads?

The content of this thread is no different to the other 20+ threads you have contributed to in the last 6 months. Might as well merge them all as content bears has no relationship with titles.

You posted this in the Lough Atalia Road thread:

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Dismount bike and walk on the footpath with bike for all of 3 mins? Not exactly rocket science, a classic example of using ones brain and the very reason why humans rule the planet

Then a Mod posted this, which you thanked:

biko wrote: »

Tbh, there is a perfectly good cycling thread on the front page. Does every thread on traffic have to be turned into another bike thread?

In response I moved the discussion to the Walking/Cycling thread:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Ah yes, but cars (actually motorists) rule Galway, which is really the point.

You see, it's the cyclists who are being asked to walk, not the motorists.

You followed the discussion, your first contribution being this ad hominem comment:

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Another post from IWH looking down on the people of Galway. Must be great up there

And now you're complaining that I'm "driving [the thread] off course into the usual car v bike argument"!

There's a term for that kind of thing, but I'm not sure "Groundhog Day" covers it.

zarquon

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. I'll counter it with an anecdote. Several months ago I was speaking to an elderly lady who gets very annoyed at, and is actually afraid of, footpath cyclists. She walks the Prom for the good of her health, but is very nervous (based on her own and others' experience) of being knocked down and breaking her hip. She told me she encountered two Community Gardai cycling on the Prom. When she gave out to them for cycling on the footpath they said, "where do you expect us to cycle?" Welcome to Galway, Ireland. Have you been here long?

2. What can I say? Back to the future...

Q.E.D. Exactly as predicted. You're as predictable as a wet arse on a coke zero bike, which in itself is peculiar because you have statistics to show that Galway is one of the dryest places in the universe to cycle.

I love how you conveniently try to brush illegal cycling under the carpet by stating that the gardai do it. If you caught a garda car parked on a footpath or stopped in a cycle lane, you would supply an outraged post along with photographs of the misdemeanor because it was done in a car but when the gardai show the same contempt on a bike - shure that's ok. Who cares about frail old ladies eh? It's their own fault for not using public transport along the prom :rolleyes:

pmasterson95

zarquon wrote: »

you have statistics to show that Galway is one of the dryest places in the universe to cycle.

Iwannahurl

zarquon wrote: »

1. Q.E.D. Exactly as predicted. You're as predictable as a wet arse on a coke zero bike, which in itself is peculiar because you have statistics to show that Galway is one of the dryest places in the universe to cycle.

2. I love how you conveniently try to brush illegal cycling under the carpet by stating that the gardai do it. If you caught a garda car parked on a footpath or stopped in a cycle lane, you would supply an outraged post along with photographs of the misdemeanor because it was done in a car but when the gardai show the same contempt on a bike - shure that's ok. Who cares about frail old ladies eh? It's their own fault for not using public transport along the prom :rolleyes:

1. Earlier you were not forgetting things that hadn't yet happened. Are you now predicting something that has already happened? The damp saddle indicated that it had been raining previously, not that it was raining during the cycle. Two entirely different scenarios. The weather data speak for themselves.

2. My anecdote about AGS members cycling on footpaths (they park on them as well, by the way) was not about brushing anything under the carpet. Quite the opposite, actually. The whole point is to draw attention to the fact that we have a police force/service which has a rather lax, or relaxed, attitude to enforcement, and is not bothered about giving good example either.

Who cares about frail old ladies? I do.

zarquon

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. Earlier you were not forgetting things that hadn't yet happened. Are you now predicting something that has already happened? The damp saddle indicated that it had been raining previously, not that it was raining during the cycle. Two entirely different scenarios. The weather data speak for themselves.

Ah, you have data to show that it only rains when people are not cycling. It's your own statistical analysis so it must be true. Bike's only get wet when there is no one on them - I'm convinced by the data! :rolleyes:

Iwannahurl wrote: »

2. My anecdote about AGS members cycling on footpaths (they park on them as well, by the way) was not about brushing anything under the carpet. Quite the opposite, actually. The whole point is to draw attention to the fact that we have a police force/service which has a rather lax, or relaxed, attitude to enforcement, and is not bothered about giving good example either.

Who cares about frail old ladies? I do.

Q.E.D. You concur then that there is no enforcement of rules towards cyclists therefore one can infer that associated statistical analysis is completely pointless.

You're very quick to draw attention to motorists and gardai not obeying or enforcing the rules but conveniently overlook the overwhelming amount of cyclists that break the law consistently.

The worst example i come across on a daily basis is the old seamus quike/seamus quike junction at aldi/cancer care west. On several occasions i have almost hit a cyclist running through the red light when i have a green when turning and more often than not they are cycling the wrong direction too. It's usually cyclists from Dunaras going to NUIG who don't bother to cross over to the legal side of the road as that would be inconvenient :rolleyes: Facilities cannot be blamed either as there is a regular shuttle bus that runs along there

I'd imagine many other motorists have had near misses at the same junction as i refuse to believe that i'm the only one unlucky enough to encounter this on a semi regular basis

Cyclists in Galway cannot consider themselves as equal road users until they get to the point where they adhere to an equal level of obedience to the rules of the road

Iwannahurl

zarquon wrote: »

Q.E.D.

I'm afraid you are demonstrating something other than what you think you are demonstrating.

MarysCurtins

Iwannahurl wrote: »

1. That's just a variant on the bog-standard "anti-car/anti-motorist" jibe. I've addressed this point over and over and over again

No it's not, and you have not addressed the point at all. If you are quite happy to acknowledge cars have their part to play in any plan then i'm sure you can tell us how you think commuting for car users could be made easier as part of an overall transport solution for the city? you have an open forum so go ahead.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

2. If there were far more Chinese people in Ireland breaking the law than Irish people breaking the law, the comparison might be valid.

I didn't mean Just Chinese people in ireland and you know that but i'll entertain your selective quoting and attempt at deflection and trying to make out that the comparison is meaningless. You obviously have crime stats so please tell me how many Chinese people in ireland break the law?

While you are at it you can address the rest of that part of the post that you conveniently left out.

What percentage of cyclists and car users break the law?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

motorists are not only more numerous but also the nature and extent of their law-breaking is potentially much more serious, for obvious reasons........... Are we to have AGS treating, say, drink-driving and cycling three-abreast with equal seriousness

A cyclist breaking a red light and travelling into a junction could be killed, as could a motorist doing the same thing. All ROTR should be enforced, whether or not one is more serious than the other, it's still breaking the law.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

My kids slag me for driving like a nun, and when it comes to parking legally versus parking conveniently they shout at me "go on, break the law just this once!"

Unsurprisingly you claim to be a law abiding motorist / cyclist but this statement is truly bizarre.

zarquon

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm afraid you are demonstrating something other than what you think you are demonstrating.

If i took a poll of other contributers here i could supply some statistical analysis to show you are wrong.

Analytically, your rebuttals are becoming less thought out. When defeated use deflection - the last ditch effort of any collapsing debate.

pmasterson95

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I'm afraid you are demonstrating something other than what you think you are demonstrating.

How about adressing the rest of his post? Or is that too damaging to your "stats" and "facts" to try and counter?

zarquon

pmasterson95 wrote: »

How about adressing the rest of his post? Or is that too damaging to your "stats" and "facts" to try and counter?

Deflection is what one uses when they are defeated. He is clearly uncomfortable addressing the points in question. Next time he will probably focus on grammatical errors or some other nonsensical rebuttal.

Statistically 99% of deflectors are already beaten. The other 1% just don't know it yet.

I must invite a scientologist, mormon and Jehovah's witness around for coffee. I'd probably have a more reasoned and intelligent conversation.

Iwannahurl

MarysCurtins wrote: »

1. No it's not, and you have not addressed the point at all. If you are quite happy to acknowledge cars have their part to play in any plan then i'm sure you can tell us how you think commuting for car users could be made easier as part of an overall transport solution for the city? you have an open forum so go ahead.

2. I didn't mean Just Chinese people in ireland and you know that but i'll entertain your selective quoting and attempt at deflection and trying to make out that the comparison is meaningless. You obviously have crime stats so please tell me how many Chinese people in ireland break the law? While you are at it you can address the rest of that part of the post that you conveniently left out.

3. What percentage of cyclists and car users break the law?

4. A cyclist breaking a red light and travelling into a junction could be killed, as could a motorist doing the same thing. All ROTR should be enforced, whether or not one is more serious than the other, it's still breaking the law.

5. Unsurprisingly you claim to be a law abiding motorist / cyclist but this statement is truly bizarre.

1. Among other policy documents, the Strategic Bus Study 2007 and especially the Public Transport Feasibility Study 2010 address various aspects of how car traffic needs to be handled. The focus, quite rightly, is not on making car commuting easier but on making sustainable transport more reliable and efficient, which then benefits all commuters and all road users. I'd be in broad agreement with the recommendations of these and other compatible studies.

2. No.

3. I have no idea. If you think such data are essential for the discussion, why not post some details here?

4. I agree that there's not enough enforcement generally. However, all other things being equal, you'll probably find that in reality AGS prioritises the allocation of available resources. It's perhaps analogous to the health services. All patients are, or ought to be, equal. But if you visit a well-run A&E department and you will see that more urgent cases are generally seen first. It's called triage. AGS may have a similar system -- I don't know.

5. Why bizarre? It just a mildly amusing anecdote (to me anyway) and it happens to be true.

pmasterson95

zarquon wrote: »

Deflection is what one uses when they are defeated. He is clearly uncomfortable addressing the points in question. Next time he will probably focus on grammatical errors or some other nonsensical rebuttal.

Statistically 99% of deflectors are already beaten. The other 1% just don't know it yet.

I must invite a scientologist, mormon and Jehovah's witness around for coffee. I'd probably have a more reasoned and intelligent conversation.

Yeah he again hasnt acknowledged the questions asked. Clearly he knows hes talking manure but keeps ranting about things that "suit" his "argument". Its funny to see but that comical style combined with the "stats" makes it entertaining.