Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Indo: 'outrage' over cyclists not using bike lane

Options
1…567810

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    07Lapierre
    Registered Users Posts: 8,248 ✭✭✭07Lapierre


    steamengine wrote: »
    ..........and keep proceeding with caution until you reach the far side is the present reality.

    Feck it! Just proceed with caution and to hell with the lights! :)


  • Options
    #273
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,833 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    This is apt

    https://imgur.com/gallery/jZvpbwY


  • Options
    #274
    Eamondomc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭Eamondomc


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    This is apt

    https://imgur.com/gallery/jZvpbwY

    2 idiots in one video there!


  • Options
    #275
    Chuchote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    This is apt

    https://imgur.com/gallery/jZvpbwY

    It is and it isn't. Good on the pedestrian who stops that arrogant bollocks. But may the idiot who wrote the "Cyclists want…" caption lose his bollocks in an unfortunate captioning accident.


  • Options
    #276
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Chuchote wrote: »
    This is a troll, a motorist who has an irrational hatred of cyclists.

    Far from it. You even completely miss when I'm having a laugh.

    Regardless, you should know you're not allowed to accuse people of trolling.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    Dermot Illogical
    Registered Users Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭Dermot Illogical


    Eamondomc wrote: »
    2 idiots in one video there!

    I only see one.


  • Options
    #278
    Chuchote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭Chuchote


    Basil3 wrote: »
    Far from it. You even completely miss when I'm having a laugh.

    Regardless, you should know you're not allowed to accuse people of trolling.

    I haven't missed when you're having a laugh in the four pages devoted to your posts. But having a laugh isn't sharing the road.


  • Options
    #279
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Chuchote wrote: »
    I haven't missed when you're having a laugh in the four pages devoted to your posts. But having a laugh isn't sharing the road.

    I'm completely for sharing the road, but I'm being told that my way of sharing isn't how other people want to share it. It doesn't make me wrong, it's only an opinion....


  • Options
    #280
    OldBean
    Registered Users Posts: 1,407 ✭✭✭OldBean


    Basil3 wrote: »
    but I'm being told that my way of sharing isn't how other people want to share it.

    ...


  • Options
    #281
    DirkVoodoo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,504 ✭✭✭✭DirkVoodoo


    Basil3 wrote: »
    I'm completely for sharing the road, but I'm being told that my way of sharing isn't how other people want to share it. It doesn't make me wrong, it's only an opinion....

    I have opinions too!

    I mean, my opinion is that anyone who is involved in an incident of dangerous and aggressive driving around cyclists should receive a lifetime ban from driving and a free bike from the state.

    My opinion is also that driving is a privilege and not a right. Testing should ensure that only the best, most responsible drivers can pass a test (probably around 30% from my own observations) and that it should be a little more thorough than driving around an estate for 30 minutes.

    My opinion is that more should be done to educate people that roads are shared spaces and not the exclusive domain of the automobile.

    My opinion is also that cyclists in Dublin really need to be made aware of how important decent lights are, especially in conditions like last night. Sorry, high viz jackets don't make you visible when I'm looking for you in my wing mirror/blind spot.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    The pushing of high vis and next to no mention of lights must have something to do with every second night time cyclist I saw around UCC last week having hi viz but only one having lights.


  • Options
    #283
    DirkVoodoo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,504 ✭✭✭✭DirkVoodoo


    TheChizler wrote: »
    The pushing of high vis and next to no mention of lights must have something to do with every second night time cyclist I saw around UCC last week having hi viz but only one having lights.

    Yeah, it's the RSA mentality. I was driving through Ranelagh last night in that heavy downpour (had to pick up doggie from the vet or I wouldn't have been out!) and was really dismayed at how few people had lights. Turning into the left turn lane at the Spar, I had to just sit there because I knew bikes were coming, I just couldn't see them.

    That would be my "outrage"...when I'm driving, the stuff Basil3 mentioned is more down to poor driving or road infrastructure...but there really isn't an excuse not to have lights, lots of lights, at night time. You don't really give yourself a chance in a high viz.


  • Options
    #284
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    DirkVoodoo wrote: »
    I have opinions too!

    I mean, my opinion is that anyone who is involved in an incident of dangerous and aggressive driving around cyclists should receive a lifetime ban from driving and a free bike from the state.

    My opinion is also that driving is a privilege and not a right. Testing should ensure that only the best, most responsible drivers can pass a test (probably around 30% from my own observations) and that it should be a little more thorough than driving around an estate for 30 minutes.

    My opinion is that more should be done to educate people that roads are shared spaces and not the exclusive domain of the automobile.

    My opinion is also that cyclists in Dublin really need to be made aware of how important decent lights are, especially in conditions like last night. Sorry, high viz jackets don't make you visible when I'm looking for you in my wing mirror/blind spot.

    I have no problem with any of that, why would I?

    I have simply shared an opinion that several things that cyclists can do, while being legal, are not in the best interests of consideration of all road users. Basically the response I get is a generic 'bike riders are road users too, they can do whatever they want within the letter of the law, and they should be respected for that'. I don't think that's a good attitude to have.

    Anyway, on the subject of visibility, sometimes decent lights are not enough. The last time I was knocked off was at night in p*ssing rain and a driver pulled across me while I was going straight through an intersection. They completely misjudged my speed, froze, and with racing tyres in the rain, I had little choice but to go straight into the side of them. Funnily enough, that intersection has had a huge upgrade with the street lights, and I couldn't imagine something like that happening again.


  • Options
    #285
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    Basil3 wrote: »
    I'm completely for sharing the road, but I'm being told that my way of sharing isn't how other people want to share it. It doesn't make me wrong, it's only an opinion....
    No, you're being told that your way of sharing isn't actually sharing. It does make you wrong.


  • Options
    #286
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    No, you're being told that your way of sharing isn't actually sharing. It does make you wrong.

    I suggest you look up the meaning of sharing in a dictionary, then tell me where I said the road couldn't be shared. You can't reason with the unreasonable.


  • Options
    #287
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    Basil3 wrote: »
    I suggest you look up the meaning of sharing in a dictionary, then tell me where I said the road couldn't be shared. You can't reason with the unreasonable.

    Does it say "Get out of my way" in your dictionary?


  • Options
    #288
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,769 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    I particularly dislike the way the RSA give away free lights, giving the impression that a combination of these with one of their hi-viz vests is effective. The lights they give away cost about €2 in Aldi and, judged as a primary light, are complete and utter rubbish. If you were cycling along a poorly lit road and approaching a car that was waiting at a side road, you really wouldn't be all that more visible than someone with no conspicuity aids; car lights throw to the left, so reflective stripes wouldn't reflect the headlights, and the RSA lights are just a pinprick of light.


  • Options
    #289
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    2RockMountain wrote: »
    Does it say "Get out of my way" in your dictionary?

    You're clutching here.

    Not once in my life have I yelled at, beeped my horn at, or driven at a cyclist. I only suggest a cyclist shouldn't impede the flow of other traffic if there are other safe, viable options available at that present time. Amazed with the responses explaining to me why a cyclist might do these things. I'm fully aware, but I'm not talking about those situations.


  • Options
    #290
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,769 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Basil3 wrote: »
    I only suggest a cyclist shouldn't impede the flow of other traffic if there are other safe, viable options available at that present time.

    And, for some of these scenarios you've described, it's been explained why what the cyclists do is the safer option, or, in the case of using a pedestrian crossing to reach the far side of the road, that a cyclist might be nervous, or that they aren't agile enough to get through oncoming traffic the usual way.

    In other words, the other options are sometimes neither particularly "safe" nor "viable". Now what's "amazing" about that?


  • Options
    #291
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    And, for some of these scenarios you've described, it's been explained why what the cyclists do is the safer option, or, in the case of using a pedestrian crossing to reach the far side of the road, that a cyclist might be nervous, or that they aren't agile enough to get through oncoming traffic the usual way.

    In other words, the other options are sometimes neither particularly "safe" nor "viable". Now what's "amazing" about that?

    Right, so I say when there are other safe, viable options available. Your response is that you don't care what I say, there are no other safe, viable options....it really is laughable.

    It's pretty clear around here that you're either pro cycling or against. Definitely no middle ground. Extremely sad.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,769 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Basil3 wrote: »
    Extremely sad.

    This is like debating Donald Trump.


  • Options
    #293
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,769 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Basil3 wrote: »
    Right, so I say when there are other safe, viable options available. Your response is that you don't care what I say, there are no other safe, viable options....it really is laughable.

    Have you considered getting remedial comprehension classes?


  • Options
    #294
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    tomasrojo wrote: »
    Have you considered getting remedial comprehension classes?

    I have no problem with my comprehension, thanks. The pedestrian crossing thing is a complete aside to my original points, and clearly you feel very strongly about it. What do you want me to say? That cyclists can use pedestrian crossings to cross the road?

    It doesn't alter the fact that I say 'when there are safe, viable alternatives', and the blanket response is 'computer says no'. It's getting ridiculous.


  • Options
    #295
    tomasrojo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,769 ✭✭✭✭tomasrojo


    Basil3 wrote: »
    I have no problem with my comprehension, thanks. The pedestrian crossing thing is a complete aside to my original points, and clearly you feel very strongly about it. What do you want me to say? That cyclists can use pedestrian crossings to cross the road?

    You're the one who brought it up, and never explained why you it bothers you so much.

    I think I'll have to cede the stage to you now. I have limited patience.


  • Options
    #296
    2RockMountain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,012 ✭✭✭2RockMountain


    Basil3 wrote: »
    I only suggest a cyclist shouldn't impede the flow of other traffic

    Your definition of 'sharing' appears to be remarkably one-sided. Unbalanced even.


  • Options
    #297
    Dermot Illogical
    Registered Users Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭Dermot Illogical


    Basil3 wrote: »
    I have no problem with my comprehension, thanks. The pedestrian crossing thing is a complete aside to my original points, and clearly you feel very strongly about it. What do you want me to say? That cyclists can use pedestrian crossings to cross the road?

    It doesn't alter the fact that I say 'when there are safe, viable alternatives', and the blanket response is 'computer says no'. It's getting ridiculous.

    I get what you say, to a point. The bit I think you're missing is that you don't get to decide what's safe for a vulnerable road user when you're in your cage.
    The cyclist has to assume that at least one of the following motorists has poor ability.


  • Options
    #298
    Eamondomc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭Eamondomc


    Dermot Illogical wrote: »
    I only see one.

    I see two Dermot, that guy could have caused a serious accident as well as the cyclist.
    Ok the cyclist was a klutz and the video highlights that, but suddenly throwing your body in front of a fast moving cycle is pretty stupid also I think.


  • Options
    #299
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Dermot Illogical wrote: »
    I get what you say, to a point. The bit I think you're missing is that you don't get to decide what's safe for a vulnerable road user when you're in your cage.
    The cyclist has to assume that at least one of the following motorists has poor ability.

    I understand that. I think my attitude is completely blown out of proportion. I'm not pro or anti cycling. I'm pro free-flowing traffic, and anti accidents.

    For a simple example, lets say a cyclist wants to get between A and B, and have the option of using the roads, or using a cycle path which is a fantastic surface, doesn't cross any side streets, and doesn't require the cyclist to go up any kerbs. In fact, it's a perfect straight run through. The cyclist chooses to use the road, for whatever reason.

    If I were to question this, the responses I would get would range from 'because there are issues with the cycle lane that you don't know about', to 'because it's their legal right'. I think that attitude stinks, but hey ho.

    I could give actual examples of things I see in certain locations when I'm commuting, but to be honest....this drains me :p


  • Options
    #300
    Dermot Illogical
    Registered Users Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭Dermot Illogical


    Eamondomc wrote: »
    I see two Dermot, that guy could have caused a serious accident as well as the cyclist.
    Ok the cyclist was a klutz and the video highlights that, but suddenly throwing your body in front of a fast moving cycle is pretty stupid also I think.

    The pedestrian was smart enough to not place his whole body in the way. Just a foot. I wish more would do similar. That cyclist is a cretin, and there are plenty more out there like him unfortunately.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    Dermot Illogical
    Registered Users Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭Dermot Illogical


    Basil3 wrote: »
    For a simple example, lets say a cyclist wants to get between A and B, and have the option of using the roads, or using a cycle path which is a fantastic surface, doesn't cross any side streets, and doesn't require the cyclist to go up any kerbs. In fact, it's a perfect straight run through. The cyclist chooses to use the road, for whatever reason.

    Nobody really enjoys being in among haphazard traffic. If they aren't using it there's usually a reason. It might not be immediately obvious, but there will be one.
    Of course there will always be the occasional fruit that defies all logic.


Advertisement