Cycling/Walking around the city

Iwannahurl

zarquon wrote: »

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

They'll be in good company so.

What's the difference between a Jehovah's Witness and my old banger of a car? You can close the door on a Jehovah's Witness.

What do you get when you cross a JW with an agnostic? Someone who goes door to door for no apparent reason.

Etc.

By the way, I've noticed the Mormons have started using bikes. Saving souls and the planet. Win-win, I guess.

pmasterson95

MarysCurtins wrote: »

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

Iwannahurl wrote: »

2. No.

brightened the dreary day!

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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

Not much point as you simply wouldn't read them.

zarquon

Iwannahurl wrote: »

They'll be in good company so.

What's the difference between a Jehovah's Witness and my old banger of a car? You can close the door on a Jehovah's Witness.

What do you get when you cross a JW with an agnostic? Someone who goes door to door for no apparent reason.

Etc.

By the way, I've noticed the Mormons have started using bikes. Saving souls and the planet. Win-win, I guess.

More irrelevant deflection whilst ignoring my relevant points for which you seem to have no rebuttal for. Very surprising, not at all expected! :rolleyes:

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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?

The point I was making is breaking rules of the road on a bike has about as much chance of getting you in trouble as you campaigning for converting a bus lane to a lane for cars, i.e. zero chance. Where as I would very rarely if ever risk breaking the same rules in a car as the chances of getting in trouble are massively higher and the trouble you get into far greater.

I normally drive at a speed I judge be suitable for the road and condition that may be above or below the posted limit.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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

I haven't cycled a bike in years and never in Galway city and certainly would never be cycling for sport of wearing spandex.

The worst thing is if the car hit the cyclists, the driver would be blamed. We would probably have a video up on youtube like some idiot cyclists have posted before.

Also before you latch onto it yes I said I might go through a red light on a bike but I sure wouldn't sail through it in front of a car I would edge through and ensure it was safe to proceed.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

(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.

I'd say the Guards must be sick of you pestering them over meaningless offences like parking etc, If I was Guard and had to be listening to you I tell you were to go fairly fast and a warning to not come back.

Also the Gardai are (and should be) perfectly entitled to park where they want during the course of their duty, be that footpaths, double yellow lines etc etc.

zarquon wrote: »

More irrelevant deflection whilst ignoring my relevant points for which you seem to have no rebuttal for. Very surprising, not at all expected! :rolleyes:

There are a large amount of points being ignored as many of them rubbish a lot of what IWH is saying and infact show the exact opposite in many cases.

MarysCurtins

Iwannahurl wrote: »

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

Thanks for the replies.

3. Well you implied that total number of offences by group is more important that the percentage of users from each group committing offences, I don't think it is. I don't know the percentages that's why I asked. Can i ask how many offences then are committed daily / weekly/ monthly by each group? As you stated cars commit more there is obviously stats somewhere and you like to back up your arguments as you've previously stated.

Just because the total number of offences is higher and a car driver doing something stupid has potential to do more damage than a cyclist doesn't make cycling offences less important and not worthy of as much attention

what_traffic

Lovely day for a walk or cycle now that the showers have passed.

zarquon

what_traffic wrote: »

Lovely day for a walk or cycle now that the showers have passed.

But there are statistics to show that Galway weather does not affect cycling. Surely all morning and afternoon would have been fine for a walk or cycle?

?Cee?view

what_traffic wrote: »

Lovely day for a walk or cycle now that the showers have passed.

But it's been demonstrated here that it's statistically impossible to get wet while cycling in Galway. What showers?

zarquon

?Cee?view wrote: »

But it's been demonstrated here that it's statistically impossible to get wet while cycling in Galway. What showers?

Yes, IWH has data to show that bikes only get wet during the interim period between rides. The data speaks for itself apparently therefore no need to audit it or provide objective analysis of it.

what_traffic

zarquon wrote: »

But there are statistics to show that Galway weather does not affect cycling. Surely all morning and afternoon would have been fine for a walk or cycle?

Ahh the little bit of rain wont melt ya. Ha ha

Robbo

?Cee?view wrote: »

But it's been demonstrated here that it's statistically impossible to get wet while cycling in Galway. What showers?

In lieu of engaging with the post or making sense, here's a picture of a man looking thoroughly dignified. The only thing that'll be wet when you rock up wearing this is [innuendo redacted]...and the rest of your suit.

Crumbs868

Robbo wrote: »

In lieu of engaging with the post or making sense, here's a picture of a man looking thoroughly dignified. The only thing that'll be wet when you rock up wearing this is [innuendo redacted]...and the rest of your suit.

But sure if you are heading home again to your nice warm house with plenty of spare clothes after dropping the kids off like some pontificators a bit of rain isn't going to bother you.

pleasant Co.

A gentle reminder to all posters to maintain a civil tone towards one another, you know - don't be dicks.

Iwannahurl

?Cee?view wrote: »

But it's been demonstrated here that it's statistically impossible to get wet while cycling in Galway. What showers?

A right shower, of course. Why would anyone own waterproof gear and not want to use it?

Robbo wrote: »

In lieu of engaging with the post or making sense, here's a picture of a man looking thoroughly dignified. The only thing that'll be wet when you rock up wearing this is [innuendo redacted]...and the rest of your suit.

It's to protect the bobbed wig, m'lud. One is suitably habited in a dark colour, and furthermore the Nubrella contraption serves to distinguish between the professions while chasing ambulances through heavy traffic. Think of it as Hi-Viz for the Honourable Society.

zarquon wrote: »

Yes, IWH has data to show that bikes only get wet during the interim period between rides. The data speaks for itself apparently therefore no need to audit it or provide objective analysis of it.

Drollish diversions notwithstanding, it's remarkable how perceptions of rain trump actual data and real experience. So what specifically are you claiming about rain and utility cycling, and what "objective analysis" can you provide in support?

.

L'Enfer du Nord

You have to admire the solidarity of Motorists. When I'm in a crowded super market you won't see me thinking this is the best shop in the world only an idiot would shop anywhere else I'm so glad every other super market has been refused planning permission. If you have no choice but to drive how will you not benefit from less people driving?

Iwannahurl

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

If you have no choice but to drive how will you not benefit from less people driving?

This is another fundamental reality that is either dismissed or just not understood by those who argue that private cars must be facilitated, who resist all attempts at reorienting policy towards sustainable transport and who insist on a 'Motorists First' set of priorities.

There seems to be an erroneous belief that the benefits of modal switch to public transport, walking and cycling only accrue to people who take the bus, walk or cycle, and that traffic congestion problems mainly or only affect motorists.

In actual fact, the problems and "externalities" associated with car dependence negatively affect society as a whole. The opposite is also true: everyone benefits from measures which reduce car dependence.

pmasterson95

Iwannahurl wrote: »

everyone benefits from measures which reduce car dependence.

What measure takes me 20km nearer my destination when I live in the country side. Floating towns?

zarquon

Iwannahurl wrote: »

A right shower, of course. Why would anyone own waterproof gear and not want to use it?

Using that same logic, why would one own health insurance and not want to use it or why would one own life assurance and not want to use it?

Waterproofing is insurance against unpleasant weather. I own some but i don't want to have to use it, particularly when walking.

L'Enfer du Nord

pmasterson95 wrote: »

What measure takes me 20km nearer my destination when I live in the country side. Floating towns?

Stationary towns with less congestion, you'll get to your destination quicker and use less petrol.

Crumbs868

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

You have to admire the solidarity of Motorists. When I'm in a crowded super market you won't see me thinking this is the best shop in the world only an idiot would shop anywhere else I'm so glad every other super market has been refused planning permission. If you have no choice but to drive how will you not benefit from less people driving?

Do you know what, I applied the exact same logic last week as I flew into knock airport. I said (I prefer to be narrow minded, ignorant and judge people based on my circumstances) what a pile of idiots to be driving on roads when you can fly

L'Enfer du Nord

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Do you know what, I applied the exact same logic last week as I flew into knock airport. I said (I prefer to be narrow minded, ignorant and judge people based on my circumstances) what a pile of idiots to be driving on roads when you can fly

Motoring for the masses in Galway must be getting worse if those who walk or cycle are now seen to have the same favoured circumstances as the Jet Set. To be honest I consider being dismissed as a member of a privileged elite preferable to being seen as a loser who can't afford their own car.

Crumbs868

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

Motoring for the masses in Galway must be getting worse if those who walk or cycle are now seen to have the same favoured circumstances as the Jet Set. To be honest I consider being dismissed as a member of a privileged elite preferable to being seen as a loser who can't afford their own car.

Wow, just wow.

The fact you labelled people(commuters)
Flying into knock as "jet set" demonstrates your delusion narrow minded input as XXXX

L'Enfer du Nord

Crumbs868 wrote: »

Wow, just wow.

The fact you labelled people(commuters)
Flying into knock as "jet set" demonstrates your delusion narrow minded input as XXXX

Does it, how so? My only direct input to this debate is to ask how people who are forced to drive would not benefit from less people driving. You've ignored this question but you've taken the time to insult me twice. Thanks for your valuable contribution.

Iwannahurl

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Why would anyone own waterproof gear and not want to use it?

zarquon wrote: »

Using that same logic, why would one own health insurance and not want to use it or why would one own life assurance and not want to use it?

Waterproofing is insurance against unpleasant weather. I own some but i don't want to have to use it, particularly when walking.

There may be lots of flaws in the 'logic' for sure.

However, I was just borrowing someone else's statement, to make a point. Now that I think of it, we can further extend it to make a bigger point.

So let's imagine, purely for the sake of discussion, that the use of waterproof gear is associated with the following:

• a hypothetical 100 deaths annually in Ireland and 100,000 deaths worldwide
• local air pollution and an overall significant contribution to CO2 emissions and hence climate change
• short-term economic benefit for majority users of the gear and the State but externalised costs which are borne long-term by everyone, especially the non-user minority
• public health problems such as asthma, obesity, and heart disease
• displacement of other materials which are much less harmful and may in fact be beneficial to human beings and the environment
• discouragement of people using other less harmful materials and consequent degradation of the quality of public spaces.

Would 'logic' suggest that use of the gear should be accommodated, facilitated and promoted in a laissez-faire manner by public policy on the basis of "why would anyone own it other than to use it"?

snubbleste

Another orange electronic sign blocking footpath on QB westbound

Three bicycle spaces removed from outside the courthouse

Iwannahurl

A funny thing happened to me the other day.

While driving home on a certain busy route, I indicated, pulled in and parked legally and appropriately at the side of the road. 50 metres or so ahead there were two lines of vehicles stacked at a junction, occupying the entire width of the carriageway.

About thirty seconds later a large jeep came up and stopped behind me, followed by a few more vehicles. Then I realised that the drivers behind me thought they were in a line of traffic. Eventually they noticed that I was in fact parked, and moved off.

Then it dawned on me that I had just discovered an unwritten rule of Irish driving. By parking legally on the road I had given the drivers behind a totally misleading signal. Had I driven up on the footpath I would have been "parking" and they would have kept going. By not parking illegally on the footpath, which is entirely normal and apparently expected, my behaviour was interpreted as "driving" and therefore they lined up behind.

Bizarre.

gordongekko

Iwannahurl wrote: »

A funny thing happened to me the other day.

While driving home on a certain busy route, I indicated, pulled in and parked legally and appropriately at the side of the road. 50 metres or so ahead there were two lines of vehicles stacked at a junction, occupying the entire width of the carriageway.

About thirty seconds later a large jeep came up and stopped behind me, followed by a few more vehicles. Then I realised that the drivers behind me thought they were in a line of traffic. Eventually they noticed that I was in fact parked, and moved off.

Then it dawned on me that I had just discovered an unwritten rule of Irish driving. By parking legally on the road I had given the drivers behind a totally misleading signal. Had I driven up on the footpath I would have been "parking" and they would have kept going. By not parking illegally on the footpath, which is entirely normal and apparently expected, my behaviour was interpreted as "driving" and therefore they lined up behind.

Bizarre.

It's even more bizarre ti hijack a cycling/walking thread to post a motoring story.

Iwannahurl

Any "hijacking" is a figment of your imagination.

And it is a story about walking, not that you'd notice in Galway, because footpaths are for walking on, at least in principle.

The effect of the unwritten rule, which I discovered for myself by chance, is that Irish footpaths are for driving and parking on as much as walking, when motorists deem it necessary or convenient. Therefore what should be a story about walking becomes a story about motoring as well.

There were lots of pedestrians around at the time -- does that help?

pmasterson95

Iwannahurl wrote: »

A funny thing happened to me the other day.

While driving home on a certain busy route, I indicated, pulled in and parked legally and appropriately at the side of the road. 50 metres or so ahead there were two lines of vehicles stacked at a junction, occupying the entire width of the carriageway.

About thirty seconds later a large jeep came up and stopped behind me, followed by a few more vehicles. Then I realised that the drivers behind me thought they were in a line of traffic. Eventually they noticed that I was in fact parked, and moved off.

Then it dawned on me that I had just discovered an unwritten rule of Irish driving. By parking legally on the road I had given the drivers behind a totally misleading signal. Had I driven up on the footpath I would have been "parking" and they would have kept going. By not parking illegally on the footpath, which is entirely normal and apparently expected, my behaviour was interpreted as "driving" and therefore they lined up behind.

Bizarre.

I dont this will be a hollywood comedy anytime soon. You've said much funnier before IWH

Iwannahurl

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I dont this will be a hollywood comedy anytime soon. You've said much funnier before IWH

Iwannahurl wrote: »

funny

Bizarre.

A short documentary about the ethnography of Irish transport culture perhaps?

Louis Theroux Jr, if one exists, could direct.