Cyclists on a Backroad

Luap

Your the fecker who knocked my granny down.

Cee-Jay-Cee

El Spearo wrote: »

note to self: do not exaggerate for humour/effect ever online.

Ditto

Technoprisoner

Icyseanfitz wrote: »

:rolleyes: really? how did the accident with your brother happen? did he walk out onto the road without the green man? or was it an idiot on a bike that ran a red and hit him?

how many people where killed by cars this year? maybe we should put a speed limit of 20 mph onto them to stop road deaths huh?

sorry saw that he had the greenman, stupid cyclist then, but we are not all the same FFS

no he walked out onto the road with the green man....and the point i am making is if the bike is not capable of slowing down in time it should only be used at a speed in which it can safely operate.

07Lapierre

Why cant we all just get along eh?

Ericaa

Technoprisoner wrote: »

no he walked out onto the road with the green man....and the point i am making is if the bike is not capable of slowing down in time it should only be used at a speed in which it can safely operate.

The green man doesn't mean an absolute right to cross the road for a pedestrian. I've nearly learned that the hard way when a car nearly hit me when I was halfway across the road. The speed at which it was travelling would have killed me.


F*ck careless people is what I say.

Technoprisoner

Ericaa wrote: »

The green man doesn't mean an absolute right to cross the road for a pedestrian. I've nearly learned that the hard way when a car nearly hit me when I was halfway across the road. The speed at which it was travelling would have killed me.


F*ck careless people is what I say.

yes but the point im trying to make is that these racer type bikes have skinny narrow tyres which does not give them much grip...and the braking systems on the bike arent great either..these 2 facts mean a bike will not stop over a short distance.....so sitting here with our sensible hats on .... do you not think it be sensible that the bikes dont travel at speeds in built up areas ... they can not brake in time and they should be held responsible if they cause an accident.....sure even buses are restricted in what speed they can travel for safety reasons..... whats so special about bikes?

Ray Palmer

Technoprisoner wrote: »

yes but the point im trying to make is that these racer type bikes have skinny narrow tyres which does not give them much grip...and the braking systems on the bike arent great either..these 2 facts mean a bike will not stop over a short distance.....so sitting here with our sensible hats on .... do you not think it be sensible that the bikes dont travel at speeds in built up areas ... they can not brake in time and they should be held responsible if they cause an accident.....sure even buses are restricted in what speed they can travel for safety reasons..... whats so special about bikes?

A bike has a shorter breaking distance than a car you seem to be ignoring that. Somebody breaking lights does not negate that fact.

There is no way a bicycle travel 15-20 feet with a child wrapped in the wheel like you said.

Some bikes have disc breaks

Technoprisoner

Ray Palmer wrote: »

A bike has a shorter breaking distance than a car you seem to be ignoring that. Somebody breaking lights does not negate that fact.

There is no way a bicycle travel 15-20 feet with a child wrapped in the wheel like you said.

Some bikes have disc breaks

really...well i seen it with my own eyes!!!

oohhh and you seem to be ignoring the fact that im saying that these bikes should have to stick to a speed limit of maybe 15-20 mph so that they can break safely without hitting another car/bike/person

The Bishop Basher

Ray Palmer wrote: »

A bike has a shorter breaking distance than a car you seem to be ignoring that. Somebody breaking lights does not negate that fact.

There is no way a bicycle travel 15-20 feet with a child wrapped in the wheel like you said.

Some bikes have disc breaks

Cyclists really need to get together and agree some of the basics. Was reading a thread on here recently where a couple of cyclists were trying to convice us that they have a longer breaking distance then cars. Maybe they just like to pretend they drive cars.

Ray Palmer

Technoprisoner wrote: »

really...well i seen it with my own eyes!!!

oohhh and you seem to be ignoring the fact that im saying that these bikes should have to stick to a speed limit of maybe 15-20 mph so that they can break safely without hitting another car/bike/person

I am sure you think you saw it. How old were you and ow long ago was it.

No I answered. That it is ridiculous and you haven't founded on anything. What breaking distance do you think will make the difference?

It isn't enforceable and would it really make much difference. One accident does not make good law

Ray Palmer

Swanner wrote: »

Cyclists really need to get together and agree some of the basics. Was reading a thread on here recently where a couple of cyclists were trying to convice us that they have a longer breaking distance then cars. Maybe they just like to pretend they drive cars.

Yeah we are basically one person :rolleyes:

Technoprisoner

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I am sure you think you saw it. How old were you and ow long ago was it.

No I answered. That it is ridiculous and you haven't founded on anything. What breaking distance do you think will make the difference?

It isn't enforceable and would it really make much difference. One accident does not make good law

there is nothing ridiculous about safety!!!

furiousox

(Opens door)
Can you keep the noise down please?
I'm trying to watch the Utd game.
Thanks.
(Closes door)

Ray Palmer

Technoprisoner wrote: »

there is nothing ridiculous about safety!!!

Really? Safety helmets for all pedestrians would be safer but not ridiculous?

If you are going to say it safer you should say how much and how

Maudi

onimpulse wrote: »

From this comment its pretty clear you don't cycle much outside urban areas. Safety is the main reason for cycling in twos. If you did cycle you would soon realise this.

well thats your opinion..and opinions are like arseholes sonny. everybody has one..now take your lycra out of yours and drop back when theres cars being held up behind your opinion. ; )

Zer0

there's nothing illegal about a group of cyclists cycling two abreast on a backroad.. get over it and have some paitence, a cyclist has every right to use a public road bar a motorway..

Where's our spirit of solidarity in this country?

Why does every petty gripe come down to an "Us" versus "Them" petty argument.

WE ALL HAVE TO SHARE THE ROADS. HOW ABOUT SHOWING SOME F*CKING PATIENCE AND COURTESY TO YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS

You never know, it might even be reciprocated if you make a bit more of an effort. :cool:

Ericaa

Zer0 wrote: »

there's nothing illegal about a group of cyclists cycling two abreast on a backroad.. get over it and have some paitence, a cyclist has every right to use a public road bar a motorway..

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_other-road-users.html

Do cycle in single file if cycling beside another person would endanger, inconvenience or block other traffic or pedestrians.

seamus

Ericaa wrote: »

http://www.rulesoftheroad.ie/rules-for-pedestrians-cyclists-motorcyclists/cyclists/cyclists_other-road-users.html

That's not the law. The ROTR is wrong on that point.

The law requires that you may only cycle 3 abreast when overtaking another cyclist, and even then only to do so if that will not inconvenience or endanger other traffic.

There is no law which requires cyclist to ride single file at any stage. It's a common error to be fair because the ROTR makes it, so how is anyone else to know.

NuckingFacker

I console myself with the thought that the tight shorts and bike-seats make the feckers impotent. They will die out. All it needs is a bit of patience. In the meantime I fantasise about clipping their back wheel and watching them careen off across the ditch in a flurry of carbon fiber, colourful tight lycra and twigs.

Zer0

fair enough so, why does it show cyclists cycling two abreast in the rsa advert on tele? bit confused

Crasp

Zer0 wrote: »

fair enough so, why does it show cyclists cycling two abreast in the rsa advert on tele? bit confused

cyclists are entitled to cycle 2 abreast. Just like Americans are entitled to bear arms.

And of course if you're entitled to do it, you MUST DO IT ALL THE TIME, EVERYWHERE BECAUSE IT'S YOUR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT AND NOBODY CAN TAKE IT AWAY FROM YOU even if common sense contradicts this right.

RobbieTheRobber

NuckingFacker wrote: »

I console myself with the thought that the tight shorts and bike-seats make the feckers impotent. They will die out. All it needs is a bit of patience. In the meantime I fantasise about clipping their back wheel and watching them careen off across the ditch in a flurry of carbon fiber, colourful tight lycra and twigs.

Cyclists are smarter and live longer!
http://www.ecf.com/news/cyclists-are-smarter-exercise-and-brain-activity/

Ericaa

seamus wrote: »

That's not the law. The ROTR is wrong on that point.

The law requires that you may only cycle 3 abreast when overtaking another cyclist, and even then only to do so if that will not inconvenience or endanger other traffic.

There is no law which requires cyclist to ride single file at any stage. It's a common error to be fair because the ROTR makes it, so how is anyone else to know.

Oooh okay, I see!

Do you have a link for that? Been a bit rules obsessed lately as I'm doing my theory test on Wednesday, wouldn't mind having a read of it!

seamus

Ericaa wrote: »

Oooh okay, I see!

Do you have a link for that? Been a bit rules obsessed lately as I'm doing my theory test on Wednesday, wouldn't mind having a read of it!

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html

47. (1) A pedal cyclist shall not drive a pedal cycle on a roadway in such a manner as to result in more than 2 pedal cyclists driving abreast, save when overtaking other pedal cyclists, and then only if to do so will not endanger, inconvenience or obstruct other traffic or pedestrians.

NuckingFacker

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Cyclists are smarter and live longer!
http://www.ecf.com/news/cyclists-are-smarter-exercise-and-brain-activity/

If they were that smart, they could afford a car.

Ericaa

seamus wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2012/en/si/0332.html

Thank you, thank you!

NuckingFacker wrote: »

If they were that smart, they could afford a car.

:rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick

Zer0 wrote: »

there's nothing illegal about a group of cyclists cycling two abreast on a backroad.. get over it and have some paitence, a cyclist has every right to use a public road bar a motorway..

As I said, just because something is legal, doesn't make it a decent thing to do.

Maudi

just because its not illegal dosent mean its not stupid...motorists have to consider other road users like car drivers .truck drivers .bikers pedestrians etc.aswell as idiots who want the *right * to cycle two abreast..even a farmer on a tractor will pull in when he can out of decency.and common sense..didnt your mother ever teach you about how to conduct yourself with decency?and not to be harping on about your *rights*

opti0nal

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I said, just because something is legal, doesn't make it a decent thing to do.

Like parking on a cycle track.