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

magicbastarder

rubadub wrote: »

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319998/Whoa-Horse-riders-wearing-hi-viz-arrested-impersonating-police.html#ixzz3iVnPDHLJ

i made the mistake of reading below the line. so horse riders also have to put up with the 'you don't pay road tax' comments.

eeeee

CramCycle wrote: »

They must have been high if they were talking about the bike you arrive on to track.

Ha ha no not Henri, Jessica the road bike. I get to track on Rosa (the track bike) so far this year. They'd have conniptions altogether if they seen her! Ah no but Jessica and Rosa are set up exactly the same only Jessica has a shorter stem.

tomasrojo

magicbastarder wrote: »

i made the mistake of reading below the line. so horse riders also have to put up with the 'you don't pay road tax' comments.

If one needs validation, try posting lightly modified quotations from prominent Nazis into Daily Mail comments. Quite a positive reaction!

CramCycle

CramCycle wrote: »

It was being written out as I passed, you could see the blue lights all the way from the dock end of the canal. Still seen a couple of cars and cyclists run reds right in front of the cop car but I suppose its one job at a time, not a slight on the Gardai, more a shock at the complete lack of observational skill or respect for the AGS.

Makes no sense to me to jump a red light unless the Gardai are already occupied......

And don't get me started on respect.............:rolleyes:

Harrybelafonte

Saw someone on a Land Shark bike in town early on Saturday morning (around Christchurch about 9am). Don't suppose anyone knows him? If the bike was right sixe for me, I'd buy it off him!

Beasty

CramCycle wrote: »

In Ireland, not a hope, our police force are "Garda" not "Police"

Actually you may need to be careful around the airports;)

roverrules

Beasty wrote: »

Actually you may need to be careful around the airports;)

Wouldn't they need to say Airport Polite?

Qualitymark

Paris has changed its traffic laws to allow cyclists through some red lights - at right turns or going straight on at a T-junction, where the cyclist can hug the pavement.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33773868

"It is a great advance because it shows we are moving away from the idea that red and green lights are all that count," says Kiki Lambert of the group Mieux Se Deplacer a Bicyclette (Getting around better on a bike).
"If we have that attitude, then we turn people into automatons and it is much more dangerous. People end up thinking that just because a light is green it is safe to go - when it might not be... Far better to use all our senses all the time.
"Also allowing cyclists to proceed is safer, because it means they avoid getting caught beside trucks and buses as they wait for lights to change. That is the origin of a lot of accidents."

Mellor

Qualitymark wrote: »

Paris has changed its traffic laws to allow cyclists through some red lights - at right turns or going straight on at a T-junction, where the cyclist can hug the pavement.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33773868

In australia, cars (and cyclists too obv) can make a left turn through a red light at certain junctions, after stopping first.

Jawgap

Wouldn't want to take a leaf out of his book......

Cyclist speared through neck with tree branch travels 20 miles to hospital

Thankfully he was ok

The rider had the presence of mind to leave the branch in place and make his way back to his car with his bike before driving himself to the nearest hospital around 20 miles away.

Had he pulled out the branch it may have caused more serious damage than the initial injury.

“The neck contains a lot of very important, vital structures… (he was) lucky not to damage anything,” said Dr Lev Deriy, an assistant professor and anaesthesiologist at the University of New Mexico where the man presented for treatment.

Surgeons were able to operate on him and remove the branch before closing the wound, with the cyclist suffering no long term damage.

Mercian Pro

Mellor wrote: »

In australia, cars (and cyclists too obv) can make a left turn through a red light at certain junctions, after stopping first.

I attempted to get a thread going here last year on changes to legislation that would benefit cyclists. Surprisingly, most of the contributions seemed to think the existing laws were fine as long as we adhered to them.

Qualitymark

Mercian Pro wrote: »

I attempted to get a thread going here last year on changes to legislation that would benefit cyclists. Surprisingly, most of the contributions seemed to think the existing laws were fine as long as we adhered to them.

For a start:

• Make it two metres passing distance, not 1.5. Most people can judge 2m, but not 1.5, especially when they're in a vehicle
• On-the-spot fines for poor indication by drivers. The I'm-turning-look-I'm-indicating-now-too method is not only dangerous on the instant, its common practice means that drivers have too much attention on the possible next crazy move by other drivers
• If a cyclist is hit by a vehicle in an area where there are badly-planned junctions, the council and the driver should automatically both be fined, as well as being financially liable
• Transparent cyclist-side doors mandatory on all trucks, vans and SUVs
• All manholes removed from roadways and re-sited on pathways

Unknown Soldier

Qualitymark wrote: »

For a start:

• Make it two metres passing distance, not 1.5. Most people can judge 2m, but not 1.5, especially when they're in a vehicle
• On-the-spot fines for poor indication by drivers. The I'm-turning-look-I'm-indicating-now-too method is not only dangerous on the instant, its common practice means that drivers have too much attention on the possible next crazy move by other drivers
• If a cyclist is hit by a vehicle in an area where there are badly-planned junctions, the council and the driver should automatically both be fined, as well as being financially liable
• Transparent cyclist-side doors mandatory on all trucks, vans and SUVs
• All manholes removed from roadways and re-sited on pathways

I'd add On-the-spot fines for poor indication by cyclists too. Or lack off.

Bloke I saw this evening was lucky not to be made a mess off on a roundabout. The gall of him looking back at the car driver like he did something wrong.

CianRyan

Some of you may remember a few months ago I wrote here about getting back on my bike after breaking my arm, as it turned out 3 months was just too soon, the pain after a few KM's was real.
Today however, 6 months and 12 days since the break, I got back on th bike for the second time and my choice of spin was 3 Rock from the carpark.
It has never been more evident that 6 months off the bike and on the cake as adverse effects on my fitness.

I managed a measly 0.4km up the climb before my legs gave out, my lungs gave out and the area under my tonge felt like it was about to explode. So that didn't go too well.
I made up for it by packing up my bike and heading back home to Tallaght and doing wa hilly loop I used to use when I first bought my bike. Even this seemed to kill me but I feel better for it.

All in all, that's about 10km in the car in 15km in the saddle. Can a chalk that up
as 25?

If anyone else is interested in some back to basics/recently recovered cycling in the evenings please give me a shout as I could use a cycling buddy for motivation.

Qualitymark

True, but when I signal correctly on my bike people stare at me. Nobody seems to remember those signals - certainly not the up-and-down wave for "I'm going to stop now", but not even the left-hand-out or right-hand-out signal for turns.

I've adapted those signals anyway by turning the palm of my hand towards the driver, which seems to make them pause, where the strictly correct signal sometimes makes them speed up to get past me.

magicbastarder

Qualitymark wrote: »

[*]Make it two metres passing distance, not 1.5. Most people can judge 2m, but not 1.5, especially when they're in a vehicle

i'd suggest making the minimum passing distance (for cars and trucks) to be equal to the width of the vehicle. harder to enforce, though.

magicbastarder

Qualitymark wrote: »

[*]All manholes removed from roadways and re-sited on pathways

the amount of work this would involve would be simply mind boggling.

Get In There

Not worthy of its own thread but I'm travelling down to Cork tmw afternoon to start my 5 day cycling holiday M2M on Friday with the gf. I've a road bike and I've managed to get a rack mounted on with some mounts (bike doesnt have eyelets). Quick question - How much pressure ought I put in the tyres? They're GP4000s (25mm). Bike along with rack modifications weighs around 10kg at a guess, myself 77kg, panniers carrying around 15kg.

Usually I have them at 110psi each but would have presumed with the rear carrying most of the load, I'd reduce it to 90psi. But having checked online ealier, I'm getting calculations that the rear should be at 120psi and front 76psi. What are your thoughts?

Beasty

Get In There wrote: »

Not worthy of its own thread but I'm travelling down to Cork tmw afternoon to start my 5 day cycling holiday M2M on Friday with the gf. I've a road bike and I've managed to get a rack mounted on with some mounts (bike doesnt have eyelets). Quick question - How much pressure ought I put in the tyres? They're GP4000s (25mm). Bike along with rack modifications weighs around 10kg at a guess, myself 77kg, panniers carrying around 15kg.

Usually I have them at 110psi each but would have presumed with the rear carrying most of the load, I'd reduce it to 90psi. But having checked online ealier, I'm getting calculations that the rear should be at 120psi and front 76psi. What are your thoughts?

More weight = more pressure. I'll tend to run 120 front and back but I'm a lot heavier than you

I would suggest sticking at 110psi certainly for the back. You may get away with slightly less in the front as it does not bear as much weight, but I would have thought 100psi should be fine

ThisRegard

Was admiring one of these http://www.greenaer.ie/product/urban-arrow-cargo-bike/ in the park today but thinking it must be a bitch to cycle when loaded as a family came back to it and 2 kids jumped in to the cargo area.

After googling it it turns out to be electric, pretty cool.

Fian

Qualitymark

magicbastarder wrote: »

the amount of work (moving all manholes to pathways) would involve would be simply mind boggling.

Could be done gradually - every time a particular manhole was opened for inspection, that manhole could be re-sited.

It would require a huge push - but it would save immense amounts as well, because pathways have less heavy traffic on them, so there would be less wear-and-tear; and there would also be less disruption when manholes had to be opened every few months - not to mention the safety aspect, for cyclists, drivers and work(wo)men.

Mellor

Qualitymark wrote: »

Could be done gradually - every time a particular manhole was opened for inspection, that manhole could be re-sited.

It would require a huge push - but it would save immense amounts as well, because pathways have less heavy traffic on them, so there would be less wear-and-tear; and there would also be less disruption when manholes had to be opened every few months - not to mention the safety aspect, for cyclists, drivers and work(wo)men.

I think you are failing to grasp why a manhole is there to begin with.
Moving a manhole from the road to the path would be pointless, as now the manhole is over nothing, and the line in the road has no man hole.

tigerboon

Qualitymark wrote: »

s
[*]All manholes removed from roadways and re-sited on pathways

The manholes are where they are because the service, drain etc is directly below them. They are not there simply to put a man into. There are thousands of kilometers of services under the streets and all of these couldn't be moved under the footpaths. Maybe a better effort could be made in maintaining the covers. Also it's surprising that nobody has come up with a finish on them that resembles asphalt for grip

ford2600

tigerboon wrote: »

The manholes are where they are because the service, drain etc is directly below them. They are not there simply to put a man into. There are thousands of kilometers of services under the streets and all of these couldn't be moved under the footpaths. Maybe a better effort could be made in maintaining the covers. Also it's surprising that nobody has come up with a finish on them that resembles asphalt for grip

The European Standard which relates to manholes has just been updated, the draft publications prior to it dealt with issue of a minimum in service slip resistance.

Haven't had the pleasure of reading new standard yet but given pressure from motorcycle lobby etc I'd be surprised if new standard didn't deal with issue.

Itll probably just apply to new covers being fitted from issue of standard rather than being applied to all existing covers

Lumen

tigerboon wrote: »

Also it's surprising that nobody has come up with a finish on them that resembles asphalt for grip

It's a solved problem.

e.g.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=anti-slip%20manhole%20covers

Qualitymark

Yeah, I'd noticed that they led underground to piping for water, sewage, electrical cables, etc

Maybe the sensible thing would probably be to move the cycle lane behind the pavement, which would have the same effect, the manhole covers would now be on the pavement.

Lumen

Qualitymark wrote: »

Maybe the sensible thing would probably be to move the cycle lane behind the pavement, which would have the same effect, the manhole covers would now be on the pavement.

Or rather than re-engineering the whole streetscape, just fit anti-slip manhole covers.

Qualitymark

Lumen wrote: »

Or rather than re-engineering the whole streetscape, just fit anti-slip manhole covers.

Trouble is, they don't stay anti-slip. The tarmac wears off within a few months, and is then not replaced.

The problem isn't only slipping, either. Look at the three manhole covers outside the hospice entrance at the start of Harold's Cross Park. You'll see cyclists swerving to avoid them, not because they're slippery but because they make the road surface dangerously uneven.

There's another at the corner of the park, where you wait (hopefully) for the lights as you go into town. A nasty little cyclist-prankster.

Lumen

Qualitymark wrote: »

Trouble is, they don't stay anti-slip. The tarmac wears off within a few months, and is then not replaced.

The problem isn't only slipping, either. Look at the three manhole covers outside the hospice entrance at the start of Harold's Cross Park. You'll see cyclists swerving to avoid them, not because they're slippery but because they make the road surface dangerously uneven.

There are plenty of products which are not just tarmac coating over a regular cover.

If the concern is with poor product choice or installation, that's going to be a worse problem with dedicated cycling infrastructure (I think there is a thread on that, with pics).

Sorting out slippery, uneven covers is easy and cheap. Retro-fitting dedicated cycling infrastructure is difficult and expensive.

AstraMonti

Off to holidays tomorrow, yei! And I will be going there as well:

Fian

What beautiful beach.

Where is it? I think i have seen photos of it before. Shipwreck cove or something like that is it called?

AstraMonti

It's in Zakynthos, Greece. Exactly it's called the Shipwreck and you can only reach it by boat or by parachuting from the cliff.

Qualitymark

AstraMonti wrote: »

It's in Zakynthos, Greece. Exactly it's called the Shipwreck and you can only reach it by boat or by parachuting from the cliff.

Or shwimmin?

AstraMonti

If you can swim around 5-6 kms to get there from the nearest point sure

lennymc

Qualitymark wrote: »

Or shwimmin?

tomasrojo

Qualitymark wrote: »

True, but when I signal correctly on my bike people stare at me. Nobody seems to remember those signals - certainly not the up-and-down wave for "I'm going to stop now", but not even the left-hand-out or right-hand-out signal for turns.

I still do the stopping hand signal. I once had a woman pull alongside me, roll down the window and tell me that she was a perfectly good driver. Very angry that I'd told her to stop. I said the signal meant that I was stopping. She gave me a hand signal that isn't in the RotR as she drove off.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

I still do the stopping hand signal. I once had a woman pull alongside me, roll down the window and tell me that she was a perfectly good driver. Very angry that I'd told her to stop. I said the signal meant that I was stopping. She gave me a hand signal that isn't in the RotR as she drove off.

I remember the correct hand signals from my driving test but considering that no one else seems to know them (well obviously not everyone but a majority of road users), i rarely use them.

I know its wrong, I tend to use the clenched fist held up in the air (like you see in military movies, with a right angle bend at the elbow) which oddly enough, everyone seems to get. I think the bend in the elbow is important in case it is mistaken for some strong right wing or strong left wing beliefs, a quick google tells me many groups with strong protest beliefs, often poles apart, use this same salute.

The correct hand signals seem to be better understood better when driving but that could be because, people see the stop sign and think, whats that guy doing, I better slow/stop, not from a deep understanding or from the belief you are telling them to stop which I suppose is the desired reaction in the immediate future. On a bike it seems to either imply you are warning them not to overtake, or just, by the reaction, that you are somehow insulting them.

Qualitymark

CramCycle wrote: »

I know its wrong, I tend to use the clenched fist held up in the air (like you see in military movies, with a right angle bend at the elbow) which oddly enough, everyone seems to get. I think the bend in the elbow is important in case it is mistaken for some strong right wing or strong left wing beliefs, a quick google tells me many groups with strong protest beliefs, often poles apart, use this same salute.

As long as you don't slap the clenched fist to your chest first, à la Breivik.

On another subject altogether, I saw a fully-loaded Guinness dray thundering through Rathmines at around 2.15pm today. Are they allowed into places where humans cycle? I wavered in terror as it passed where I waited in the middle of the road to turn right.

eeeee

Qualitymark wrote: »

As long as you don't slap the clenched fist to your chest first, à la Breivik.

On another subject altogether, I saw a fully-loaded Guinness dray thundering through Rathmines at around 2.15pm today. Are they allowed into places where humans cycle? I wavered in terror as it passed where I waited in the middle of the road to turn right.

Don't really understand your question, was it in the cycle lane?

No need to be scared around them, the type of horse pulling them are the steadiest type of horse out there. I very much doubt they were thundering either. They're the steadiest and slowest moving. By some distance! Although they frequently have the largest feet (depending on which specific breed. did they have hairy bell bottoms (feathers)?) though so that would have made quite a clatter.

Idleater

gadetra wrote: »

Don't really understand your question, was it in the cycle lane...

of all the modes of transportation, I think that horses have been on roads before bicycles :-)

RobFowl

First time I say this headline I thought it was about Lenny ....
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/aug/13/lemmy-apparently-i-am-still-indestructible-motorhead-album-bad-magic?CMP=twt_a-music_b-gdnmusic

lennymc

my beard is more rock and roll.

Qualitymark

gadetra wrote: »

Don't really understand your question, was it in the cycle lane?

No need to be scared around them, the type of horse pulling them are the steadiest type of horse out there. I very much doubt they were thundering either. They're the steadiest and slowest moving. By some distance! Although they frequently have the largest feet (depending on which specific breed. did they have hairy bell bottoms (feathers)?) though so that would have made quite a clatter.

Motorised dray. Big truck. Loaded with barrels (metal, perhaps I should clarify) of Guinness.

eeeee

Qualitymark wrote: »

Motorised dray. Big truck. Loaded with barrels (metal, perhaps I should clarify) of Guinness.

Ah I see, sorry I thought you meant traditional dray.

So it's a rigid lorry then? Or an arctic? They're just another motorized vehicle I would have thought?

ETA The one's I have seen are small ridged body type lorries, with the kegs stacked in the back in an open body. Is it that kind of thing?

CianRyan

AstraMonti wrote: »

It's in Zakynthos, Greece. Exactly it's called the Shipwreck and you can only reach it by boat or by parachuting from the cliff.

Enjoy!
I was there this time last year, stayed in Kalamaki. Tourist spot but it had the best access to the deserted spots of Laganas cove.
Some serious climbs there too if you're packing the bike, mental drivers though.
Where are you staying?

tommy_tucker

does anyone else get pissed off by people cycling the wrong direction on the cycle lanes at either side of chesterfield avenue(phoenix park) .

i'm also wondering is there any rule against them doing this? its dangerous and annoying, from a distance its hard to tell if someone is cycling towards you or with you. I always tell them there on the wrong side when cycling past.

Also very annoying is people running and walking on it, there are clear no pedestrian signs and a walking running path right beside it. Its lethal if they have there back to you as they could do anything at the last second.

wanderer 22

tommy_tucker wrote: »

does anyone else get pissed off by people cycling the wrong direction on the cycle lanes at either side of chesterfield avenue(phoenix park) .

i'm also wondering is there any rule against them doing this? its dangerous and annoying, from a distance its hard to tell if someone is cycling towards you or with you. I always tell them there on the wrong side when cycling past.

Also very annoying is people running and walking on it, there are clear no pedestrian signs and a walking running path right beside it. Its lethal if they have there back to you as they could do anything at the last second.

I've stopped using the cycle paths there; far too many obstacles.

DirkVoodoo

tommy_tucker wrote: »

does anyone else get pissed off by people cycling the wrong direction on the cycle lanes at either side of chesterfield avenue(phoenix park) .

i'm also wondering is there any rule against them doing this? its dangerous and annoying, from a distance its hard to tell if someone is cycling towards you or with you. I always tell them there on the wrong side when cycling past.

Also very annoying is people running and walking on it, there are clear no pedestrian signs and a walking running path right beside it. Its lethal if they have there back to you as they could do anything at the last second.

I had one cycle against me on the Clontarf road. I was heading back towards town and she came against me. I stopped and unclipped, she looked at me like I was in the wrong and said that the "path" was out of order on the other side of the road.

It was, due to road works, but she still could have cycle on the road in the right direction rather than creating a ridiculously more hazardous journey for her and everyone else.

It was the "move over because I have to go this way" attitude that really bothered me.

tommy_tucker

yeah that i've come across that too, people just thing cycle paths are there to cycle on in any direction you want