Sorry cyclists, there's no room for you anymore

cython

jimgoose wrote: »

Car. Main battle-tank. Weighs two tons. Bicycle. Squishy human entangled in half a shopping-trolley. Much more dangerous.

Had there been anyone in the back seat of this "car" there would have been precious little difference between being on a bike for them:
https://twitter.com/GardaTraffic/status/641628558033580032

sullivlo

Beasty wrote: »

Since when? Speed limits in Ireland only apply to motorised vehicles;)

That's gonna make the descent from Howth way more fun now!!

07Lapierre

jimgoose wrote: »

Headphones. Bicycle. Can't hear traffic. Dangerous.

Headphones, iPhone, "Spotify" app = Nice Music, which dulls out noisy cars, buses, Tyre roar, Wind, Air brakes...etc.

super_furry

jimgoose wrote: »

Car. Main battle-tank. Weighs two tons. Bicycle. Squishy human entangled in half a shopping-trolley. Much more dangerous.

Best to stay off the roads and on the path then.

jimgoose

super_furry wrote: »

Best to stay off the roads and on the path then.

I have no issue with the Pedaling Bi-Cyclists using footpaths - in my mind they're semi-mechanised pedestrians. I would however require courtesy and judicious use of the (compulsory!) bell.

traprunner

jimgoose wrote: »

Car. Main battle-tank. Weighs two tons. Bicycle. Squishy human entangled in half a shopping-trolley. Much more dangerous.

Looks like fun.

WillyFXP

jimgoose wrote: »

Headphones. Bicycle. Can't hear traffic. Dangerous.

Deaf person. Bicycle/car/motorbike/lorry/bus. Can't hear traffic. ???????

jimgoose

WillyFXP wrote: »

Deaf person. Bicycle/car/motorbike/lorry/bus. Can't hear traffic. ???????

Absolutely. Sometimes a disability is dangerous.

rubadub

Casey78 wrote: »

Always amused at the self-loathing hyprocritical gobshites who have no doubt driven themselves at some stage, expressing their utter hatred of their own family & friends & children who still drive.

Bunch of pathetic cunts.

don't think I have ever seen any posts like that. Most readily realise they know motorists so do not come up with this tripe making 100% blanket statements.

Just like how pedestrians get off very lightly, they them as "one of us"

Why I hate pedestrians

You know what I hate? Pedestrians. That self-satisfied, striding, boot-bedecked bunch of scum. Is it just me, or does the country suddenly seem to be full of them? I've never tried walking anywhere myself -- why would I? I'm a successful adult -- but it seems I can hardly travel down the street these days without one of them stepping off the pavement in front of me without looking, their face set in a holier-than-thou expression as they jump out of the way of my car in a burst of expletives. Something clearly needs to be done, and it's good that the government are starting to realise this.

The thing is, it's not just that pedestrians are all smug and annoying when they bang on about "health" and "pollution". That's sickening enough, but if their smugness was the only problem I could just ignore them - after all, they and their silly 'shoes' flash past quick enough when I get going, and their smugness can't penetrate my car's tinted windows. But the thing is there's more to it than that, because have you noticed that even though pedestrians walk millions of miles on our road system every single day, they contribute nothing at all to the cost of that road system? They have thousands and thousands of miles of dedicated pedestrian-only travel routes -- pavements, they're called, or sidewalks if you're that way inclined -- which they don't pay a penny for! Whilst honest motorists are taxed left, right and centre, they don't pay anything at all for all these facilities they enjoy. It beggars belief.

And recently, of course, it's got worse. As I'm driving up the street I constantly come across pedestrians walking across my part of the road to get from one of these pavements to another. I mean, what the hell...? Do they want the shirt off my back as well? They've been given vast tracts of pedestrian-only routes, where I'm certainly not allowed to drive, but apparently this isn't enough for them. Oh no, they want to keep encroaching into my space as well. Sure, we've all heard these walking zealots who say that it's because the 'pavements' don't form a joined-up network, meaning they can't walk to where they want to go without having to step onto the road from time to time. Aw, bless their little hearts. To pedestrians I say this: get off my part of the road. If you walk there when I'm coming along then I'll happily run you down, that's all.

In the long term there's clearly only one solution to all this. If pedestrians want to walk on our streets, which we pay for with all our driving taxes, then they need to pay their share and take their part of the responsibility. Anybody who walks anywhere should undergo training, should have to pay an annual tax towards the facilities they enjoy, should display a license plate so they can be identified, and should each be made to carry insurance in case they are ever involved in any accidents. Until then, they can sod off back to Shoeville or wherever it is they go when they aren't freeloading off the rest of us.

gctest50

jimgoose wrote: »

Car. Main battle-tank. Weighs two tons. Bicycle. Squishy human entangled in half a shopping-trolley. Much more dangerous.

aim for soft squishy bit :


http://i.imgur.com/UFzML7S.jpg

07Lapierre

jimgoose wrote: »

Absolutely. Sometimes a disability is dangerous.

Your Cycling along...You HEAR a noisy car approaching from behind...so what?

Your cycling along listening to music...you can STILL hear a car approaching from behind...so what?

Your cycling along into a headwind...all you can hear is WIND...car approaches from behind.. so what?

WillyFXP

jimgoose wrote: »

Absolutely. Sometimes a disability is dangerous.

Nice of you to demonstrate it so eloquently

jimgoose

07Lapierre wrote: »

Your Cycling along...You HEAR a noisy car approaching from behind...so what?

Your cycling along listening to music...you can STILL hear a car approaching from behind...so what?

Your cycling along into a headwind...all you can hear is WIND...car approaches from behind.. so what?

Most modern cars are pretty quiet, especially at the sort of low-ish speeds you tend to have in urban/suburban areas. Well, if you contend that it's of no advantage whatsoever to be able to hear traffic, and to not deliberately lessen your ability to do so, so be it.

WillyFXP wrote: »

Nice of you to demonstrate it so eloquently

Why thank you. What disability would that be, then?

WillyFXP

jimgoose wrote: »

Why thank you. What disability would that be, then?

The one you just thanked me for

jimgoose

WillyFXP wrote: »

The one you just thanked me for

Hmm. No, I still don't get it. I think you've just Branched to Fishkill, as 'twere. :pac:

07Lapierre

jimgoose wrote: »

Most modern cars are pretty quiet, especially at the sort of low-ish speeds you tend to have in urban/suburban areas. Well, if you contend that it's of no advantage whatsoever to be able to hear traffic, and to not deliberately lessen your ability to do so, so be it.

Why thank you. What disability would that be, then?

really? Electric cars maybe, but most other cars are very noisy on the OUTSIDE. If the roads are wet the noise from the tyres can be deafening. Trucks are certainly not quiet.

WillyFXP

jimgoose wrote: »

Hmm. No, I still don't get it. I think you've just Branched to Fishkill, as 'twere. :pac:

sigh.....

Badly Drunk Boy

jimgoose wrote: »

Certainly. What kind of blithering idiot would deliberately knock out one of their own vital senses while cycling a pedaling bi-cycle??

Yeah, you're right. All speakers should be removed from cars.

Jawgap

Ally Dick wrote: »

I feel I am stating the obvious here. There are now so many cars in Ireland that it is dangerous for cyclists. Sorry cyclists. There is now no room to accommodate you on Irish roads, so it's time to retire the bike until the cycle lanes are built and roads widened to fit you in. Otherwise, you are taking your life in your hands

that was yesterday......

......plenty of room today

jimgoose

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

Yeah, you're right. All speakers should be removed from cars.

Not quite the same thing as headphones, bass.

07Lapierre

jimgoose wrote: »

Not quite the same thing as headphones, bass.

Your right...wearing headphones while cycling is not as "insulating" as listening to music in a soundproof box.

A better comparison is listening to loud music while driving a convertible car at speed.

Ally Dick

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

If you are dodging and weaving in Dublin in a car, you are a far greater hazard than any blind reckless cyclist.

It's a figure of speech to over dramatise the event !

jimgoose

07Lapierre wrote: »

Your right...wearing headphones while cycling is not as "insulating" as listening to music in a soundproof box.

A better comparison is listening to loud music while driving a convertible car at speed.

Ambient noise, loud as it may be at times, is not as "insulating" as having it injected directly into the ear-hole.

diomed

Pneumatic tubes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatic_tube#/media/File:Pneumatic_Dispatch_-_Figure_7.png

Precursors of pneumatic tube systems for passenger transport, the atmospheric railway (for which the tube was laid between the rails, with a piston running in it suspended from the train through a sealable slot in the top of the tube) were operated as follows:
1844–54: Dublin and Kingstown Railway's Dalkey Atmospheric Railway between Kingstown (Dún Laoghaire) and Dalkey, Ireland (1.75 mi (2.82 km))

Qualitymark

diomed wrote: »

1844–54: Dublin and Kingstown Railway's Dalkey Atmospheric Railway between Kingstown (Dún Laoghaire) and Dalkey, Ireland (1.75 mi (2.82 km))

Yes, there's a lovely cycle along the metals there.

rubadub

07Lapierre wrote: »

Your right...wearing headphones while cycling is not as "insulating" as listening to music in a soundproof box.

There was a test done on this.

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cyclists-with-ipods-hear-the-same-as-motorists-listening-to-nothing/013329

Cyclists with iPods hear the same as motorists listening to nothing

Ride On magazine of Australia has discovered that cyclists listening to music or podcasts while riding hear more ambient traffic noise than motorists listening to an in-car stereo or even listening to nothing at all. Cars - with windows up - are inherently sound-proof.

Equipped with a decibel meter ("and a synthetic model ear specifically created for us by our regular collaborator at RMIT Industrial Design, Dr Scott Mayson") Ride On magazine measured the traffic noises that could be heard by cyclists wearing ear buds and motorists listening to music or no music at all.

"With the ear-bud in our synthetic ear but not playing music, we measured the ambient traffic noise at 79dB. With the in-ear earphones, the traffic noise was 71dB," states Ride On.

"We quickly established that cars are remarkably soundproof. We measured the average peak of ambient traffic noise inside the car (with the motor running) to be 54dB, which is 26dB quieter than outside the car. We rang a bike bell right outside an open car window and measured it from in the car at 105dB. With the window closed, the same bell registered just 57dB."...


Contrary to the mainstream media myth that cyclists (and pedestrians) who listen to music on the go are "iPod wearing zombies", Ride On finds that "ear-bud earphones set at a reasonable volume still allow riders to clearly here the warning sounds of other riders."

Pinch Flat

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

Yeah, you're right. All speakers should be removed from cars.

Overlooks as well that deaf people can legally drive (and cycle for that matter).

Beasty

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Overlooks as well that deaf people can legally drive (and cycle for that matter).

Can they Christ they'll be letting old people drive and youngsters ride bike soon:pac:

dealornodeal23

Ally Dick wrote: »

I feel I am stating the obvious here. There are now so many cars in Ireland that it is dangerous for cyclists. Sorry cyclists. There is now no room to accommodate you on Irish roads, so it's time to retire the bike until the cycle lanes are built and roads widened to fit you in. Otherwise, you are taking your life in your hands

You are being ridiculous, anyone can walk out the door and bang drivers are at risk too so stop telling us cyclists what to do

Pinch Flat

Beasty wrote: »

Can they Christ they'll be letting old people drive and youngsters ride bike soon:pac:

http://rsa.ie/Documents/ADI/Driver_Training_hard_hearing_deaf.pdf

Yep, per the link above

Old Jakey

Cyclists, do everyone a favour and stop cycling two abreast!

Jawgap

Old Jakey wrote: »

Cyclists, do everyone a favour and stop cycling two abreast!

Change the law.

Plus cycling to abreast (as opposed to 'to a breast') makes for a shorter overtaking run for cars etc.

Beasty

Well as I like overtaking I'm allowed to make it 3 abreast ......

Cuban Pete

Old Jakey wrote: »

Cyclists, do everyone a favour and stop cycling two abreast!

Perfectly legal and, if memory serves, even recommended for safety.

Beasty

Jawgap wrote: »

Plus cycling to abreast

You are supposed to keep them side by side not cycle into them ....

07Lapierre

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Overlooks as well that deaf people can legally drive (and cycle for that matter).

Deaf people are fine, its the "Sorry I didn't see you" people that are the problem!

Jawgap

Beasty wrote: »

You are supposed to keep them side by side not cycle into them ....

.......you can't motorboat them properly unless you cycle into them

anyway, cycling to a breast isn't the problem - it's the t!ts on the road that are the problem

Red King

There seems to be a clear divergence of opinion between cyclists and motorists regarding cycling two abreast.

I love cycling but I go out less and less as I just don't feel safe on the roads.

Jawgap

Red King wrote: »

There seems to be a clear divergence of opinion between cyclists and motorists regarding cycling two abreast.

I love cycling but I go out less and less as I just don't feel safe on the roads.

There's no real divergence.

What there is, is a lack of understanding on what the law says in regards of it and why it's a good idea.

Beasty

Red King wrote: »

There seems to be a clear divergence of opinion between cyclists and motorists regarding cycling two abreast.

I love cycling but I go out less and less as I just don't feel safe on the roads.

If drivers want to get past quickly and safely, and the road is wide enough, it's better to overtake a group that is twice as wide and half as long - it really is as simple as that. If the road is too narrow for overtaking 2 abreast safely, in my experience most groups will go into single file

Pinch Flat

This video kind of nails the whole cycling 2 abreast idea - why cyclists do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJiixtKuVq8

I have to say in all my years driving it's never an issue - what is worse is when drivers squeeze past single file cyclists, sometimes coming way to close or into oncoming traffic - particularly on continuous white lines, or obstructions like corners or hump back bridges. This is a far worse problem IMHO than being delayed a few minutes, although I;m sure you'll have someone on here who said they were delayed behind a group of cyclists for hours on end.

Old Jakey

Cuban Pete wrote: »

Perfectly legal and, if memory serves, even recommended for safety.

Just move into single file when a driver is trying to overtake ok? You'll probably live longer if you do.

Jawgap

Old Jakey wrote: »

Just move into single file when a driver is trying to overtake ok? You'll probably live longer if you do.

Why?

Are there many people being killed at the moment by motorists overtaking cyclists riding two abreast?

Chips Lovell

Eleventy two in 2014 alone.

Arbitrary

Baby steps OP. First we need to ban lycra outside of competitive cycling. This should automatically take 50% of cyclists off the roads alone.

It's well known that there are swathes of "nouveau cyclistes" who only cycle so they can wear lycra.

cython

Old Jakey wrote: »

Just move into single file when a driver is trying to overtake ok? You'll probably live longer if you do.

Just wait until it's safe to overtake, ok? You'll probably avoid charges of dangerous driving causing death if you do.

Seriously, I have been overtaken dangerously (typically too close, but sometimes the vehicle overtakes in spite of oncoming traffic and cuts back in way too quick) as a cyclist far more often while cycling single file than while in a group two abreast. I simply don't trust drivers spatial awareness and ability to overtake, so anything that forces them to think properly about it is worthwhile.

Capt'n Midnight

frozenfrozen wrote: »

everything should be banned only yoghurt is allowed

well Friday is culture night.

Beasty

Arbitrary wrote: »

It's well known that there are swathes of "nouveau cyclistes" who only cycle so they can wear lycra.

Lycra - Mmmmmmmm....

http://www.cyclingstars.de/ulli.jpg

RobbieTheRobber

cython wrote: »

Just wait until it's safe to overtake, ok? You'll probably avoid charges of dangerous driving causing death if you do.

Seriously, I have been overtaken dangerously (typically too close, but sometimes the vehicle overtakes in spite of oncoming traffic and cuts back in way too quick) as a cyclist far more often while cycling single file than while in a group two abreast. I simply don't trust drivers spatial awareness and ability to overtake, so anything that forces them to think properly about it is worthwhile.

I have been overtaken by motorists who must immediately after overtaking me, jam on their brakes because they have encountered the back of the very traffic that was slowing me down.

Last week I had a woman swerve into the bus lane in which i was in the center of, without using her indicators and nearly colliding with me. When i passed her out ten meters further up the road and asked her did she not use her mirrors because I was in the lane she angrily informed me she had seen me.

Yesterday I observed a man using his Ipad on the passenger seat while taking a right hand turn. His face turned bright red when i pointed to his obvious infraction of the road laws. He however continued to use the ipad at the next junction when i caught up again.

This morning on the way to work I had a man undertake me in a bus lane and dangerously veer back into the correct lane just narrowly in front of me to avoid the parked bus i had moved out of the bus lane to avoid.


Everyone seems dangerously in a rush to sit in traffic to me. How more people are not injured by the bad, reckless and downright dangerous behavior of motorists absolutely amazes me.

Pinch Flat

Arbitrary wrote: »

Baby steps OP. First we need to ban lycra outside of competitive cycling. This should automatically take 50% of cyclists off the roads alone.

It's well known that there are swathes of "nouveau cyclistes" who only cycle so they can wear lycra.

They may take our freedom, but they'll never take our LYYYYCCCCCRRRRRA!