Jan and Klodi's Party Bus - part II **off topic discussion**

Chips Lovell

Qualitymark wrote: »

Seems a bit dodgy!

I'm not talking about this case - don't know anything about it, was just curious about the legalities of bicycle vs general traffic lights. But I would have thought that if a driver had to be given a breath and urine and possibly blood test, the same should be true of a cyclist.

As far as I recall, drunk driving is the only intoxication-type offence where there is test involved. Other offences such as intoxication in a public place, etc. only require the opinion of the Garda.

As for the traffic lights thing, I'd assume the regulations are that you obey the light for the lane you're in. Similarly, if I'm in a car, I wouldn't be entitled to pass through a red if the bus lane had a green.

Eamonnator

Qualitymark wrote: »

Judge fines cyclist €700 because, apparently, cycling traffic light only applies if you're in the cycle lane:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/four-gardai-needed-to-put-arrogant-cyclist-in-cell-court-told-376308.html

There was a lot more to it than "cycling traffic light only applies if you're in the cycle lane."

tomasrojo

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

As for the traffic lights thing, I'd assume the regulations are that you obey the light for the lane you're in. Similarly, if I'm in a car, I wouldn't be entitled to pass through a red if the bus lane had a green.

Yeah, I assume so too. He was in the wrong on two counts and then made a nuisance of himself on top of that.

The tone of the coverage (uppity cyclists in the media again) is a different matter.

Chips Lovell

Ach, I don't know. I think if a motorist was convicted of similar, it would also make the court reports.

tomasrojo

Yeah, but variations of "motorist", "driving" and "car" wouldn't have appeared once or twice in every sentence. After establishing the mode of transport at the start, the defendant would have been referred to as "Mr. Shorten" or "the defendant", rather than "the motorist".

On the other hand, the disapproval of the drunkenness I assume would have been more noticeable.

Also, Varadkar was the Minister for Transport, not Environment. Not sure whose mistake that was.

CramCycle

com1 wrote: »

What is this all about? I whimped out this morning and drove to work, it was unbelievable. people driving along on the motorway with nothing near them and all of a sudden slamming on.
What was going through their heads -

"OMG I am doing 50kph and it is slightly cold I had better get back to 20 immediately before my car spontaneously explodes and crashes at 200kph into the car 200 metres ahead of me!!!!...!!!

or

"is it icy here?" *slam*, "no".

50 metres further on

"or here?" *slam* "no".

Traffic lights and stop lines seem to vanish when the weather gets anyway out of the ordinary too... "dammit man, how can I obey traffic signs, LOOK at the weather!!!" - bizarre.

I have had someone I know do it, testing their brakes is what they said. Its utter stupidity. Keep a reasonable distance between vehicles and don't drive recklessly.
This tapping the brakes to see if they work is more likely to cause an accident if they do on a slippy road. Far more bizarrely, they believe their may be brake faults or at least a reasonable chance, and yet they still drive the vehicle.

Qualitymark wrote: »

Judge fines cyclist €700 because, apparently, cycling traffic light only applies if you're in the cycle lane:

An overnight in the cells would have done him no harm either IMO

Weepsie

I was going to get the Zondas on ribble, but despite the Euro getting a little stronger against the Sterling, the price they are charging for various things is creeping up in Euro.

LollipopJimmy

seamus wrote: »

Little bit of a black art in spokes. Which becomes a pain in the hole when all you want to do is replace a broken one, not build a whole wheel.

Simplest way is to take the broken spoke and a good steel ruler if you have one. Measure from the tip of the spoke (i.e. the end of the threads), down to the inside of the elbow. What's the elbow? Where the spoke bends 90 degrees to attach to the hub. So the length of the spoke you're looking for is effectively the length of the long straight bit, but from the inside of the curve, not the outside.

The lengths are in mm, and a standard gauge & weight spoke should do fine, though if you google the wheels it should tell you what the current spokes are. Try and get the measurement as accurate as possible, but again for the purposes of replacing a spoke on a training wheel, you can usually be as much as 2 or 3mm out in your measurement without any problems.

If you were building or rebuilding a wheel, you'd have vernier calipers out getting exact measurements of hub flanges and rim depths, but you don't need that here.

If it's a rear wheel, buy 5 of them. If it's a front wheel, buy ten of them. If one spoke has gone already, more are on the verge of going. So it's handy to have more spares ready to go. Rear wheels have different length spokes on each side, non-disc front wheels have the same length on both sides. Also good practice to replace the nipples, so if you can get a small box of them cheap, you may as well.

The broken spoke is gone, I had to undo it when I was halfway to work and continue on, I bent it up and put it in my pocket. So I'll have to remove another to measure it

I just want a spoke!! Lol

cdaly_

CramCycle wrote: »

I have had someone I know do it, testing their brakes is what they said. Its utter stupidity. Keep a reasonable distance between vehicles and don't drive recklessly.
This tapping the brakes to see if they work is more likely to cause an accident if they do on a slippy road.

There is a recommendation to be found in some cars' manuals to try the brakes on a suspected slippery surface and if the ABS triggers, you know it's slippery. This actually works as a test but you do need to do it in a safe manner...

Qualitymark

I was advised to tap the brakes - not to put them on, just tap them, and only when on a clear road. But not for ice. My instructor on a mend-your-own-car course, said that you should do this to dry off the brakes after driving through water deep enough that it might have coated the brake pads. I'd be terrified to do it on an icy surface; danger of aquaplaning.

CramCycle

cdaly_ wrote: »

There is a recommendation to be found in some cars' manuals to try the brakes on a suspected slippery surface and if the ABS triggers, you know it's slippery. This actually works as a test but you do need to do it in a safe manner...

My OH said she felt the ABS trigger stopping at a T junction this morning. I think my crazy comment was more to do with those in moving traffic or in a position where if it was slippery, they would be guaranteed to crash.

roverrules

Lumen wrote: »

Because in the context of Australian road "safety" it makes the actions of the officer look even worse. The officer knew that the cyclist was like literally on the brink of death by cycling unhelmeted, and then made the conscious decision to push him over! Attempted murder!

More likely that it was one of the offences for which they wanted to stop him, could have been worse they might have assumed he was a terrorist with a cycle bomb and tazered or shot him.


http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/world/2015/12/27/Vienna-police-on-alert-after-attack-warning-.html

Extra steps include surveillance in crowded spaces, "especially at events and traffic hubs" as well as intensive identity checks and higher alertness for objects which could carry explosives such as bags or "bicycle frames", it said.

Qualitymark

Bicycle bombs used to be a thing. The French Résistance (whom, strangely, the French don't regard with the kind of spite the bourgeoisie reserve for the 1916 fighters) were fond of them. Algerians too, I think.

Harrybelafonte

Qualitymark wrote: »

Bicycle bombs used to be a thing. The French Résistance (whom, strangely, the French don't regard with the kind of spite the bourgeoisie reserve for the 1916 fighters) were fond of them. Algerians too, I think.

To begin with, the uprising of 1916 and those who participated are in no way comparable to the numbers or scale of the French Resistance's activities, nor the context.

Also, referring to the "bourgeoisie" while at the same time, in the same sentence, in a half-hearted pretension using the term "French Résistance" and "bourgeoisie" is comic genius.

tomasrojo

Bicycle bombs have been used occasionally, but placed in baskets or panniers.

John Adams looked into whether anyone had packed bicycle frames with explosive and he couldn't find any examples. It seems to be a myth.

Also, the likely result, he concluded, of detonating explosive in a standard diamond frame would be to shoot the saddle up in the air, rather than scatter metal in all directions.

Cars are much better for harbouring explosive devices, especially as they as a matter of course contain volatile combustible materials anyway.

Qualitymark

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

To begin with, the uprising of 1916 and those who participated are in no way comparable to the numbers or scale of the French Resistance's activities, nor the context.

Also, referring to the "bourgeoisie" while at the same time, in the same sentence, in a half-hearted pretension using the term "French Résistance" and "bourgeoisie" is comic genius.

The Rising itself involved around 3,000 people; it began the War of Independence which involved comparably far higher numbers than were in the French Résistance (sorry you object to the acute accent on the word).

RobFowl

Qualitymark wrote: »

The Rising itself involved around 3,000 people; it began the War of Independence which involved comparably far higher numbers than were in the French Résistance (sorry you object to the acute accent on the word).

Shure wouldn't we be better off if the Brits were still in charge anyways...



(ducks and gets coat at same time...)

CramCycle

RobFowl wrote: »

Shure wouldn't we be better off if the Brits were still in charge anyways...



(ducks and gets coat at same time...)

Well the brits would have given us home rule in short order, only for a few members of the rising council got impatient and decided it was better to kill a load of young impressionable men, women and children for their ideals rather than wait two years.

(Rather blunt and inaccurate telling of history but with large doses of the truth).

The differences between the IRB and the French resistance is phenomenal, other than certain tactics used, I would not put them on the same page.

tomasrojo

I wouldn't have bet on all things having gone swimmingly in alternative time strands where the Rising didn't happen either.

Which is not to say that I'm deliriously happy with the way things did go.

Chips Lovell

I'd prefer to see us celebrating the centenary of the First Dail instead of 1916.

The Rising had virtually no popular mandate and its subsequent incorporation into nationalist mythology has been morally problematic, since it has been used an excuse to legitimise violent campaigns by range of minority terrorist groups from the anti-treaty faction right up to the current crop of "dissident" republicans.

The First Dail on the other hand, the people of Ireland voted overwhelmingly for representatives running on a manifesto of cutting ties with Britain and creating a new state. It might be a commemoration more people could get behind.

tomasrojo

At the very least, I'd prefer they dropped the commemorations at Easter and used the actual calendar date of the Rising.

CramCycle

tomasrojo wrote: »

I wouldn't have bet on all things having gone swimmingly in alternative time strands where the Rising didn't happen either.

Which is not to say that I'm deliriously happy with the way things did go.

I am certain with my minimal understanding of human nature and certain divides, it would not have went swimmingly but at worst, in my opinion, there would have been a civil war, it would have had a similar number dead and it would have been between different people to an extent.

It would have united a greater % of Ireland population wise, not that that makes it better.

It still would have been horrible, and unlike our current history books were we have painted over some of the atrocities done in the name of an Irish Republic, I think it would have been more open.

I presume by the actions of the English after 1921 in regards to other parts of the empire breaking free, it would realistically have been a fair bit friendlier, with better economic outcomes for Ireland and potentially the support of our neighbours which may have went some way to lowering the number and level of atrocities, but only an opinion and I admit I am no expert.

Harrybelafonte

Qualitymark wrote: »

The Rising itself involved around 3,000 people; it began the War of Independence which involved comparably far higher numbers than were in the French Résistance (sorry you object to the acute accent on the word).

Your knowledge of history is poor to say the least. The War of Independence began after the sitting of the First Dáil in 1919 and the Dan Breen directed shooting. 1916 Rising built to that point as did many other events in the history of the country, but it did not "begin" it.

I don't object to the "acute accent", I object to your use of it in this instance. Did they call themselves the "French Résistance", cos I think you may be watching too much "'allo 'allo"

They were either the French Resistance or La Résistance française, don't create your own bsatard version, choose one.

tomasrojo

How much popular support did the American Revolution have?

I don't know , but I suspect most insurrections don't start with much popular support, and are carried out by secretive organisations, for obvious reasons.

I suppose I'm trying to say that I don't think the Rising was uniquely undemocratic among insurrections.

Harrybelafonte

tomasrojo wrote: »

How much popular support did the American Revolution have?

I don't know , but I suspect most insurrections don't start with much popular support, and are carried out by secretive organisations, for obvious reasons.

I suppose I'm trying to say that I don't think the Rising was uniquely undemocratic among insurrections.

Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism... ironically.

Qualitymark

CramCycle wrote: »

Well the brits would have given us home rule in short order, only for a few members of the rising council got impatient and decided it was better to kill a load of young impressionable men, women and children for their ideals rather than wait two years.

Last thing I'm going to say about this; it's too close to me.

In May 1915 Asquith's Liberal government collapsed in a crisis over the failure to supply enough shells to kill Germans in France and Turks in Gallipoli.

This government had been dependent on the Irish Parliamentary Party, and therefore had passed into law the Government of Ireland Act 1914 (known as the Home Rule Act). This was a version of an Act that had been brought through the parliament many times, and each time voted down by the House of Lords, dominated by the Conservative and Unionist Party.

The law on voting had been changed so that it was impossible for the Lords to repeatedly vote down legislation agreed by the Commons; now the Act went through.

On the outbreak of what was then known as the European War in August 1914 this legislation was delayed until the end of 1914 or the end of the war.

When Asquith's government collapsed in May 1915, he reassembled a temporary coalition, this time dominated by the Conservative and Unionist Party. These unionists were never going to allow Home Rule to pass - they had imported guns from Germany to defend the Union against any British government attempt to impose Home Rule; they had fomented and joined a mutiny of officers in the Curragh to prevent Home Rule. Home Rule was now and forever a dead duck.

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

I presume by the actions of the English after 1921 in regards to other parts of the empire breaking free, it would realistically have been a fair bit friendlier, with better economic outcomes for Ireland and potentially the support of our neighbours which may have went some way to lowering the number and level of atrocities, but only an opinion and I admit I am no expert.

Yeah, it's WAY outside any expertise I can claim to have.

Ireland being an integral part of the UK as well as the first bit of the Empire to seriously make an attempt to leave probably meant it always would have been different.

I vaguely remember The Young Irelanders had a shot at an "open" revolution, where they published details in their newspaper about what they intended to do. Didn't work out very well.

tomasrojo

Qualitymark wrote: »

These unionists were never going to allow Home Rule to pass - they had imported guns from Germany to defend the Union against any British government attempt to impose Home Rule

Yes, that's one of the bits I think would have been a problem either way.

brocbrocach

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Your knowledge of history is poor to say the least. The War of Independence began after the sitting of the First Dáil in 1919 and the Dan Breen directed shooting. 1916 Rising built to that point as did many other events in the history of the country, but it did not "begin" it.

I don't object to the "acute accent", I object to your use of it in this instance. Did they call themselves the "French Résistance", cos I think you may be watching too much "'allo 'allo"

They were either the French Resistance or La Résistance française, don't create your own bsatard version, choose one.

Anyone with any knowledge of history knows that most of it is down to interpretation. I'm afraid you've made a bit of a show of yourself above as it's not outlandish by any means to believe that the War of Independence started in 1916.
Also Seán Treacy and Séamus Robinson are usually regarded as the top men at Soloheadbeg, Breen being a lesser figure at the time.

Qualitymark

Could we maybe talk about bicycles? Sorry to have brought all this in.