In defence of cyclists

magicbastarder

brosy wrote: »

10 miles? Seriously, 10 miles???

well, if it was 10 miles, and the cyclist was going at 10mph, i suspect someone clever could work out how long fasttalkerchat was stuck behind him.

fasttalkerchat

brosy wrote: »

10 miles? Seriously, 10 miles???

If you need to lie while making a point, then you don't actually have a point, you have a lie.

Slight exaggeration but I was half an hour mins late because of it.

SerialComplaint

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Slight exaggeration but I was half an hour mins late because of it.

Where did this happen? I'd love to see this road that is 10 miles long with no safe passing points on Google Streetview.

Renn

Am I right in saying that you're not allowed to cycle on Grafton St?

Zab

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Where did this happen? I'd love to see this road that is 10 miles long with no safe passing points on Google Streetview.

It's five miles now

SerialComplaint

Renn wrote: »

Am I right in saying that you're not allowed to cycle on Grafton St?

Up to 11am each morning, Grafton St is open to cars, trucks and cyclists. After that, it is pedestrians only.

BostonB

dearg lady wrote: »

Oh god, this actually makes my blood boil. It's so bloody rude, I wonder if these people even think about what they're doing it. Bad enough there where you were able to easily overtake, but on a narrow busy road, and your stuck behind some eejit, arrrrrgghhhhhhh!

Its bit annoying, but at least theres a good lot of space in that video. On the canal its much harder to overtake, and you generally get a 2 or 3 doing it. That said if its windy day I let them and tuck in behind. Get a tow all the way up the canal.

SerialComplaint

BostonB wrote: »

Its bit annoying, but at least theres a good lot of space in that video. On the canal its much harder to overtake, and you generally get a 2 or 3 doing it. That said if its windy day I let them and tuck in behind. Get a tow all the way up the canal.

I don't mind anyone overtaking me, if they are going to keep up a pace that is faster than me. I get fairly pi$$ed when someone overtakes me, and then moves off at a modest pace. I get very pi$$ed when someone that I've just overtaken in traffic overtakes me at lights, and then moves off at a modest pace.

BostonB

Oh I'm not disagreeing with you.

magicbastarder

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Slight exaggeration but I was half an hour mins late because of it.

did you edit your post? half an hour mins late?
in half an hour, you did not find a clear spot to overtake someone who was only halfway out into your lane?
even if they took up the full lane, half an hour? was your battery flat and you were pushing your car?

Pkiernan

magicbastarder wrote: »

did you edit your post? half an hour mins late?
in half an hour, you did not find a clear spot to overtake someone who was only halfway out into your lane?
even if they took up the full lane, half an hour? was your battery flat and you were pushing your car?

This is you:

Surveyor11

General General wrote: »

Single file, motherfu.c.kers. & look over your shoulder before you roll your stupid looking ass into the middle of the road to overtake another cyclist or do that wobbly look-how-much-effort-I-am-putting-in thing you do.

You're my new hero, simply legendary

fasttalkerchat

magicbastarder wrote: »

did you edit your post? half an hour mins late?
in half an hour, you did not find a clear spot to overtake someone who was only halfway out into your lane?
even if they took up the full lane, half an hour? was your battery flat and you were pushing your car?

I was going to say 30 mins but someone would take it literally and do another calculation. All I know is that I was held up and could have overtaken him if he stayed in tight to the left of the lane.

CramCycle

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

All I know is that I was held up and could have overtaken him if he stayed in tight to the left of the lane.

FACT 1: You may have been able to overtake him

FACT 2: If it wasn't safe when he was in the middle of the lane, then it would not be any safer if he was to the left of the lane.

CONCLUSION: Fact 1 is irrelevant because it in no way takes into consideration the safety of either the cyclist, oncoming traffic or yourself, fact 2 is of far more importance as it points out both the obvious and should hopefully reinforce one of the things you should consider when overtaking any form of traffic on the road.

fasttalkerchat

CramCycle wrote: »

FACT 1: You may have been able to overtake him

FACT 2: If it wasn't safe when he was in the middle of the lane, then it would not be any safer if he was to the left of the lane.

CONCLUSION: Fact 1 is irrelevant because it in no way takes into consideration the safety of either the cyclist, oncoming traffic or yourself, fact 2 is of far more importance as it points out both the obvious and should hopefully reinforce one of the things you should consider when overtaking any form of traffic on the road.

There were several points where it was safe to pull out and quickly back in again but not enough time to safely pull all the way over to the other side of the road and back again. There were also several safe points for him to pull in at a gate or picnic/rest point to let traffic pass safely.
I probably could have got past him but I wasn't going to put his life at risk just because he was inconsiderate.

magicbastarder

no - if it was not safe to overtake if he was only halfway out into the lane (as opposed to overtaking a car which would take up the full lane), it was not safe to overtake.

what road was this? 5 miles of tarmac where there was not a single point you could pass a cyclist doing 10mph?

Renn

This is quite a high percentage but in my experience of cyclists in Dublin city centre approximately 90-95% of them break the rules in some form/do something incredibly stupid.

seamus

Renn wrote: »

This is quite a high percentage but in my experience of cyclists in Dublin city centre approximately 90-95% of them break the rules in some form/do something incredibly stupid.

True. I'd say it's the same for all road users regardless of whether they're walking, driving or cycling. In fact if you're talking about breaking the rules or doing something stupid or both, I would put the figure at more like 99.9999%. Nobody can say that they go out in public and obey the rules and act impeccably perfectly all the time.

CramCycle

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

There were several points where it was safe to pull out and quickly back in again but not enough time to safely pull all the way over to the other side of the road and back again. .

Contradiction, just because something appears safe, doesn't mean it is, what if he slipped and fell? I presume when you say quickly pull back in its because there was opposing traffic? So a side swipe is safer then a head on collision, maybe but I'd rather risk neither.

You either could or could not overtake him safely. You thought it wasn't safe so you didn't, I just hope you realise that if you come across the same situation where the only difference is the cyclist is a foot or two closer to the left that it is still not safe, even if it appears so. Unless you intend to swipe/buzz the cyclist, you have to cross the central line, to do so puts you in the path of approaching traffic, either there was no opposing traffic for a distance long enough for an overtake (ie a safe distance that you could see) or there was traffic inside of this distance and it was unsafe.

magicbastarder

Renn wrote: »

This is quite a high percentage but in my experience of cyclists in Dublin city centre approximately 90-95% of them break the rules in some form/do something incredibly stupid.

what percentage of motorists have not broken a speed limit?
especially in dublin city centre where there are plenty of roads covered by the 30kph speed limit.

Renn

Not sure why you're bringing motorists in to this since it's a thread about cyclists.

Reoil

Cyclists are getting killed on the roads on a nearly-weekly basis now.
How many pedestrians are getting killed by cyclists? Exactly.
Get the gimps on the footpaths and out of the way of cars.

Chips Lovell

Reoil wrote: »

Cyclists are getting killed on the roads on a nearly-weekly basis now.

Unless there's five weeks in the year, I doubt it.

CramCycle

Reoil wrote: »

How many pedestrians are getting killed by cyclists? Exactly.

On the same note, get cars into driveways, car occupants ARE getting killed every week.

steve9859

Renn wrote: »

This is quite a high percentage but in my experience of cyclists motorists in Dublin city centre approximately 90-95% of them break the rules in some form/do something incredibly stupid.

Another mororist trying to take the moral high ground when none exists.

FYP

Reoil

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Unless there's five weeks in the year, I doubt it.

Check the dates yourself.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Cyclist%20killed

Surveyor11

This probably paints the true picture, rather than a google search:

The 212 who died consisted of 44 pedestrians, 5 cyclists, 91 drivers, 55 passengers and 17 bikers.

source: http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

seamus

Reoil wrote: »

Check the dates yourself.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Cyclist%20killed

With 15 times the population, I would expect about one cyclist fatality in the UK per week, which is about the same as the number in your link.

36 other roads users die in the UK every week. Why would you single out cyclists? It seems like they're the least at risk.

In any case, this is not the UK. One cyclist does not die on our roads every week.

CramCycle

Reoil wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Cyclist%20killed

BBC? Boards.IE?

Not saying there deaths are less relevant but it is fair to assume the conversation relates to Irish roads.

Reoil

seamus wrote: »

36 other roads users die in the UK every week. Why would you single out cyclists? It seems like they're the least at risk.

Cars need to use roads, cyclists don't. Needless deaths when there is an alternative available.

seamus

Reoil wrote: »

Cars need to use roads, cyclists don't. Needless deaths when there is an alternative available.

By the same logic, you could force cars to drive on the footpath.

Most footpaths are more than wide enough to accomodate your average family car provided you drive slowly and carefully enough.

Leave the roads for the trucks and busses who need to use them and stop the car-nage. Why do we allow cars on roads when an alternative is available?

Reoil

seamus wrote: »

By the same logic, you could force cars to drive on the footpath.

Oh ffs. :rolleyes:

seamus

Reoil wrote: »

Oh ffs. :rolleyes:

At least now you know how I feel when I read your nonsense.

MajesticDonkey

Reoil wrote: »

Cars need to use roads, cyclists don't.

What do you propose we use?

Stark

This is what I love about these threads. On the one side, you've the ranters complaining that they saw a couple of kids cycling on the footpath several weeks ago and therefore all cyclists are bad, on the other side you've the troglodytes suggesting that all cyclists should be forced to use the footpath.

MajesticDonkey

Stark wrote: »

This is what I love about these threads. On the one side, you've the ranters complaining that they saw a couple of kids cycling on the footpath several weeks ago and therefore all cyclists are bad, on the other side you've the troglodytes suggesting that all cyclists should be forced to use the footpath.

Exactly, and I've yet to see a single cyclist in this thread complain non-stop about motorists. Most of them are saying it's a give-respect get-respect system, which it is.

Reoil

Decryptor wrote: »

What do you propose we use?

The footpaths.

Reoil

CramCycle wrote: »

BBC? Boards.IE?

Not saying there deaths are less relevant but it is fair to assume the conversation relates to Irish roads.

Apart from being a different country, they differ how? Same idea still applies.

CramCycle

Reoil wrote: »

The footpaths.

A fair question was asked though, you asked why cyclists don't use footpaths, most would argue safety, practicality and common sense but since none of these make sense to you, why don't motorbikes or mopeds use footpaths?

MajesticDonkey

Reoil wrote: »

The footpaths.

Well I can't really relate to this because I don't cycle in a city, as most people in this thread seem to assume everyone does.

But to make a semi-intelligent reply, what do you then do with the pedestrians? And also, just to recap, why don't you agree with cyclists on roads?

Reoil

CramCycle wrote: »

A fair question was asked though, you asked why cyclists don't use footpaths, most would argue safety, practicality and common sense but since none of these make sense to you, why don't motorbikes or mopeds use footpaths?

Because, generally, they travel faster - or have the potential to at least - and make significant noise. If you need insurance, you stick to the road. If you don't, use the footpath.

CramCycle

Reoil wrote: »

Apart from being a different country, they differ how? Same idea still applies.

Cyclists aren't dying on the implied dramatic scale in this country that you were implying, to be fair, considering the population of Britain, they aren't dying at a dramatic rate either.

Yours said on a near weekly basis, the fact that this is an irish site would lead to the fairly obvious presumption that you meant on Irish roads.

While you have all the solutions, how do we stop the other 35 deaths a week on british roads and how do we keep the risk of injury on footpaths to both pedestrians and cyclists down should the ridiculous suggestion you had ever bear fruit.

Chips Lovell

Reoil wrote: »

Check the dates yourself.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=Cyclist%20killed

http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

MajesticDonkey

Reoil wrote: »

If you need insurance, you stick to the road. If you don't, use the footpath.

Actually, as a member of Cycling Ireland, I have personal accident and public liability insurance. And as my bike is worth over €2k, which is worth more than most cars on the road, mind you, I also have insurance to cover my bike. Am I allowed on the road?

Reoil

Decryptor wrote: »

Actually, as a member of Cycling Ireland, I have personal accident and public liability insurance. And as my bike is worth over €2k, which is worth more than most cars on the road, mind you, I also have insurance to cover my bike. Am I allowed on the road?

Your insurance isn't mandatory. I'll change my terms and conditions accordingly.

jsn.peters

You can get bad cyclists & bad drivers, both annoy me

CramCycle

Reoil wrote: »

Because, generally, they travel faster - or have the potential to at least -

A huge error there, having the potential doesn't mean you should, also alot of Irish roads (in fact the majority) don't have footpaths.

and make significant noise.

?? Its not like the foot paths and the road are segregated by sound proof barriers

If you need insurance, you stick to the road. If you don't, use the footpath.

I don't need insurance, the reason insurance is needed for other types of vehicles is due to the level of accidents they are involved in and the level of hassle it removes by necessitating insurance, if cycling ever reaches the levels of both usage and accidents that insurance became a necessity then we can come back to it then.

jaffacakesyum

Unless you live in a town with a population of 10 people, cycling on a footpath is one of the stupidest ideas I've heard in a good while.

fasttalkerchat

CramCycle wrote: »

Contradiction, just because something appears safe, doesn't mean it is, what if he slipped and fell? I presume when you say quickly pull back in its because there was opposing traffic? So a side swipe is safer then a head on collision, maybe but I'd rather risk neither.

You either could or could not overtake him safely. You thought it wasn't safe so you didn't, I just hope you realise that if you come across the same situation where the only difference is the cyclist is a foot or two closer to the left that it is still not safe, even if it appears so. Unless you intend to swipe/buzz the cyclist, you have to cross the central line, to do so puts you in the path of approaching traffic, either there was no opposing traffic for a distance long enough for an overtake (ie a safe distance that you could see) or there was traffic inside of this distance and it was unsafe.

Last time saying this. It was possible for me to pull out. It may have been possible for me to overtake so I can't dispute that.
However in my opinion it was not safe for me to overtake so I sat behind the cyclist.

Renn

steve9859 wrote: »

Another mororist trying to take the moral high ground when none exists.

FYP

Really pathetic attempt at 'fixing' my post. I'm not a motorist (that's what you tried to type, right?) and this is a thread about cyclists. And my experience with cyclists in Dublin city centre.

I thought that much was clear in my post.