They don't even pay road tax Joe. **Off topic thread**

buffalo

heh, reminds me of several viewpoints on the domestic scene here: http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/05/news/ochowicz-calls-for-end-to-crash-fest-by-removing-wildcard-teams_371663

The modern peloton’s crash problem can be at least partially alleviated by removing lower-tier teams from major WorldTour races, and decreasing total field size,

Alek

Cycle track my a**e.



They were taking the full width of both cycle lanes and moved to the right only when I approached and braked. :mad:

ThisRegard

Is the one on the left really really tall, or is her mate just very small ?

Alek

I think its due to wide angle lens distortion: look at the size of buggies. The left one was taller but not by much.

tomasrojo

You need to pass this through a Finian McGrath filter.

A cyclist forced two mothers and four children out of the way. It's only a matter of time before a tragic accident occurs. We need speed limits on cycle tracks.

buffalo

tomasrojo wrote: »

You need to pass this through a Finian McGrath filter.

A cyclist forced two mothers and four children out of the way. It's only a matter of time before a tragic accident occurs. We need speed limits on cycle tracks.

I noticed this morning that there's a big poster of his face on one of the bus shelters on the Clontarf cycleway. Felt like he was watching me... judging me...

Raam

buffalo wrote: »

I noticed this morning that there's a big poster of his face one one of the bus shelters on the Clontarf cycleway. Felt like he was watching me... judging me...

He's got a sexy tache though.

tomasrojo

buffalo wrote: »

I noticed this morning that there's a big poster of his face one one of the bus shelters on the Clontarf cycleway. Felt like he was watching me... judging me...

Hmmm ...

Dermot Illogical

buffalo wrote: »

I noticed this morning that there's a big poster of his face one one of the bus shelters on the Clontarf cycleway. Felt like he was watching me... judging me...

I thought he was great in "The Snapper" tbf

bcmf

Needed a coffee so jumped into Spar/ Insomnia to grab an espresso as I didn't have much time to drink it. Girl behind the counter Mis-hears me an shout's to the coffee machine attendant "Double espresso". The coffee machine attendant misheard the cashier and puts two espresso's in front of me. I pour them into the 1 cup and now realise I have 2 double espresso's in 1 serving.
Will be an interesting afternoon....

rollingscone

bcmf wrote: »

Needed a coffee so jumped into Spar/ Insomnia to grab an espresso as I didn't have much time to drink it. Girl behind the counter Mis-hears me an shout's to the coffee machine attendant "Double espresso". The coffee machine attendant misheard the cashier and puts two espresso's in front of me. I pour them into the 1 cup and now realise I have 2 double espresso's in 1 serving.
Will be an interesting afternoon....

Funny you should say. I have a package needs collecting in Bundoran

The tax man

This is how I imagine bcmf typing out his quadruple espresso post.:D

Fian

Alek wrote: »

Cycle track my a**e.



They were taking the full width of both cycle lanes and moved to the right only when I approached and braked. :mad:

In fairness, the path does not look like it is suitable to wheel buggies. Not all that different to when cyclists (myself included) choose to cycle on the road rather than a poorly surfaced path. No need to be territorial about the cycle path, minor inconvenience at most to pass them by I would have thought? And they did move out of your way.

Live and let live imo, they were using a better surface not trying to inconvenience anyone it looks like.

Alek

Let me repeat: they were using full width of double cycle path and did not react to an oncoming cyclist until he was very close.

No problem in sharing the cycle path (even though the footpath wasn't actually that bad) but as they are "guests" here I would expect to go in single line at least.

Not all that different to when cyclists (myself included) choose to cycle on the road rather than a poorly surfaced path.

The difference being that you are allowed to be on both, while segregated cycle paths are for bikes only.

BrianHenryIE

Fian wrote: »

In fairness, the path does not look like it is suitable to wheel buggies. Not all that different to when cyclists (myself included) choose to cycle on the road rather than a poorly surfaced path. No need to be territorial about the cycle path, minor inconvenience at most to pass them by I would have thought? And they did move out of your way.

Live and let live imo, they were using a better surface not trying to inconvenience anyone it looks like.

I imagine they're using it not because of the surface but because it wider and they can have a chat as they walk along. That's down to a poor design but it's irresponsible to put babies on a bike path. I often fly along there at 35 kph. It's right of Alex to at least raise the issue.

bcmf

The tax man wrote:

This is how I imagine bcmf typing out his quadruple espresso post.

HR deffo way up.Starting to feel a bit jittery. And feeling really really warm.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Alek wrote: »

Cycle track my a**e.



They were taking the full width of both cycle lanes and moved to the right only when I approached and braked. :mad:

This is outside Eastpoint business park, right?

The path here is a shambles. At least they moved. It's not the end of the world that you had to slow down

Alek

Titan Scrawny Glasses wrote: »

At least they moved. It's not the end of the world that you had to slow down

Of course not. Lets reverse the situation: what if a cyclist was riding hard on the pavement and swerved around you in the last second?

rollingscone

Alek wrote: »

Of course not. Lets reverse the situation: what if a cyclist was riding hard on the pavement and swerved around you in the last second?

I'm surprised your sonic boom didn't just blast them across the road like paper dolls.

Harrybelafonte

Cut their ****ing hands off!!!!!

Chips Lovell

Alek wrote: »

Of course not. Lets reverse the situation: what if a cyclist was riding hard on the pavement...

At what speed were they pushing these buggies towards you?

buffalo

brian.henry wrote: »

I imagine they're using it not because of the surface but because it wider and they can have a chat as they walk along. That's down to a poor design but it's irresponsible to put babies on a bike path. I often fly along there at 35 kph. It's right of Alex to at least raise the issue.

It is legal to push buggies two abreast?

Harrybelafonte

bcmf wrote: »

HR deffo way up.Starting to feel a bit jittery. And feeling really really warm.

You'll be fine. Top up by another double espresso at 5pm and get a good training session in.

Alek

At what speed were they pushing these buggies towards you?

They were risking their children safety at very slow speed indeed sir.

It was not a problem for me in that particular situation, maybe slight annoyance. But if a cyclist was approaching from behind them, gave a shout and they move in the wrong way? Or if they were behind a bend, and I was going bit faster?

But hypothetical situations aside, they should not have been there, same as cyclists are not supposed to cycle on the footpath or break red lights, even though it can be considered "safe" sometimes by some of them.

RainyDay

buffalo wrote: »

It is legal to push buggies two abreast?

Four abreast - did you not see the picture?

Alek wrote: »

No problem in sharing the cycle path (even though the footpath wasn't actually that bad) but as they are "guests" here I would expect to go in single line at least.

Was one buggy overtaking? I think there is a legal exemption allowing buggies to be two abreast (or four abreast) if one is overtaking the other.

tomasrojo

Prime Time will be moaning about cyclists looking into road rage and cyclists tonight at 2135.

bcmf

Harrybelafonte wrote:

You'll be fine. Top up by another double espresso at 5pm and get a good training session in.

Gotta go over to The Beacon Clinic straight from work where they have a free coffee machine. I may not sleep tonight

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Alek wrote: »

Of course not. Lets reverse the situation: what if a cyclist was riding hard on the pavement and swerved around you in the last second?

The situations are not even comparable.

Alek wrote: »

They were risking their children safety at very slow speed indeed sir.

It was not a problem for me in that particular situation, maybe slight annoyance. But if a cyclist was approaching from behind them, gave a shout and they move in the wrong way? Or if they were behind a bend, and I was going bit faster?

But hypothetical situations aside, they should not have been there, same as cyclists are not supposed to cycle on the footpath.

I am hoping your first sentece here is a joke

If they move the wrong way then the cyclist was moving to fast for the situation. Likewise for the blind bend, if you chose to cycle as if you were expecting no obstructions, then that's not very wise.

They may not have been there, but their alternative is not fantastic. I don't see any issue with this at all. They moved for you, albeit not as fast as you would have liked them to, but so what?

Alek

The situations are not even comparable.

They certainly are. Almost stationary pedestrian and a cyclist going fast - the only difference is who was supposed / not expected to be where.

I am hoping your first sentece here is a joke

A semi joke.

They may not have been there, but their alternative is not fantastic.

This sentence can be used to defend many illegal activities, you know? Yet try to say this about cycling on footpath on this forum. Or breaking red lights in motoring

They moved for you, albeit not as fast as you would have liked them to, but so what?

So I was going fast and concerned for the kids.

Junior

buffalo wrote: »

It is legal to push buggies two abreast?

I notice that they aren't wearing high vis or helmets either.. tut tut ..

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Alek wrote: »

They certainly are. Almost stationary pedestrian and a cyclist going fast - the only difference is who was supposed / not expected to be where.

I don't think they are the same at all. The perpetrators are going at completely different speeds etc etc.

This sentence can be used to defend many illegal activities, you know? Yet try to say this about cycling on footpath on this forum. Or breaking red lights in motoring

Are you really comparing breaking a read light with chosing an alternative to a path which is in disrepair? Again, these are not comparable. Being a law, doesn't make them comparable.

So I was going fast and concerned for the kids.

So slow down if you are so concerned.

eeeee

The buggies weren't supposed to be there. You don't cycle in that cycle lane expecting buggies to be there. If is was just the path and a busy road it wouldn't be ok to wheel the buggies out onto the road, same argument here.

There was a tractor on the M50 once, it had a top speed of 40kph. By your reasoning Iamxavier, all traffic on the M50 should only do 40kph just in case. That's not how it works.

I think this is a great example of how badly maintained footpaths and adjacent cycle lanes don't work.

Wishbone Ash

gadetra wrote: »

...There was a tractor on the M50 once, it had a top speed of 40kph....

Was it doing 40km/h or did it have a top speed of 40km/h? (The regulations stipulate that the vehicle must be capable of 50km/h - not that they have to travel at 50km/h.)

Qualitymark

gadetra wrote: »

There was a tractor on the M50 once, it had a top speed of 40kph.

Tractors shouldn't be on motorways either.

Idleater

Qualitymark wrote: »

Tractors shouldn't be on motorways either.

Some may.

Expect the unexpected.

ROK ON

Idleater wrote: »

Some may.

Expect the unexpected.

Key to travelling by any mode of transport really.

Alek - the cycle path from east point out to Sutton on any day that I have used it is used by walkers, jiggers, cyclists, dogs etc.

Sure they were in the wrong but cycling in a urban/suburban zone is hardly ideal for wanting to go fast.
Someone mentioned 35km - in an urban setting with commuters and walkers present inconsiderate at relatively fast and could be construed as irresponsible.

Use the road if you don't want to meet walkers in that stretch - I have never used it and not encountered pedestrians.

Fwiw I have a set of twins. When they were young enough to be in a buggy, the double buggy is heavy and cumbersome. It is simply not as easy to manoeuvre as a single buggy. Maybe it simply took them a bit more time than you would expect for them to move?

Alek

So slow down if you are so concerned.

So I did, with no chip on my honour - no need to be bitter.


Please note guys that I wasn't fuming, shouting, shaking fists or anything. I have two kids myself that go in a double buggy, but I am trying to be as much considerate as possible when it comes to getting in the way of someone. Which happens all the time whenever I'm in the city, doing shopping, navigating through streets broad and narrow.

Lusk_Doyle

buffalo wrote: »

It is legal to push buggies two abreast?

That's four abreast!

Lusk_Doyle

Alek wrote: »

through streets broad and narrow.

Crying "Cockles and muscles. Alive alive oh!"

Another insightful expose on cycling on primetime tonight:rolleyes:

Qualitymark

Primetime is going to be discussing cyclists tonight. Wear a helmet to watch.

Tenzor07

Tune in as Miriam takes on the scourge of Dublin streets!

RobFowl

ronoc wrote: »

Another insightful expose on cycling on primetime tonight:rolleyes:

I think George Hook is coming on as an expert

Wishbone Ash

RobFowl wrote: »

I think George Hook is coming on as an expert

.....and Finian McGrath to ensure a balanced debate.

roverrules

RainyDay wrote: »

Four abreast - did you not see the picture?


Was one buggy overtaking? I think there is a legal exemption allowing buggies to be two abreast (or four abreast) if one is overtaking the other.

Now come on, every one knows that the norm when raising kids is one a breast

nomdeboardie

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

Crying "Cockles and muscles. Alive alive oh!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_wE96py_Q0

cockle hockers...whelk flingers

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Alek wrote: »

So I did, with no chip on my honour - no need to be bitter.


Please note guys that I wasn't fuming, shouting, shaking fists or anything. I have two kids myself that go in a double buggy, but I am trying to be as much considerate as possible when it comes to getting in the way of someone. Which happens all the time whenever I'm in the city, doing shopping, navigating through streets broad and narrow.

Not bitter at all. I just see it as a non event. It's what happens when you travel by any mode of transport. People are everywhere. Sure we can set rules and make laws, but many people are ignorant and/or don't care. We would need another subforum for posts like these as everybody here runs into obstacles, which shouldn't be there, all the time.

gadetra wrote: »

The buggies weren't supposed to be there. You don't cycle in that cycle lane expecting buggies to be there. If is was just the path and a busy road it wouldn't be ok to wheel the buggies out onto the road, same argument here.

There was a tractor on the M50 once, it had a top speed of 40kph. By your reasoning Iamxavier, all traffic on the M50 should only do 40kph just in case. That's not how it works.

I think this is a great example of how badly maintained footpaths and adjacent cycle lanes don't work.

When I cycle in that lane I would expect anything and everything. Mostly runners/joggers I would say. I use the road there sometimes too but I am two minds about it. Cars do crazy speeds along that stretch.

Anyway, I wouldn't expect everybody on the M50 to do 40kph, that's stretching it just a little, no? Just drive/cycle/walk with care is all I am trying to convey.

Alek

I just see it as a non event.

Do not even dare to read http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056767318 :P

tomasrojo

Incidentally, if Averil Power does run as an Independent in the next general election, guess who she'll be in competition with? Finian McGrath.

Kav0777

tomasrojo wrote: »

Incidentally, if Averil Power does run as an Independent in the next general election, guess who she'll be in competition with? Finian McGrath.

If she does run as an independent, she better not run on the cycle track...