Cycle protest in dublin city centre

Ray Palmer

railer201 wrote: »

Parking is allowed in non-mandatory cycle lanes for the purposes of loading/unloading and for thirty minutes.

There are no mandatory cycle lanes that law didn't last long. You may park to load/unload on cycle lanes with broken lines. That does not mean to go into a shop and buy something. There are also designated parking spots on a few cycle lane within certain hours.
There is however a law that you must not impede cycle facilities. So when you drive in a cycle lane with a dotted white line it is like a yellow box. This means you can enter if you can leave. However many motorist use it as an extension of the road to drive in which is illegal.
The gardai have said they will not enforce laws for parking in cycle lanes. Direct question and a direct answer.

Chuchote

Not looking good for tomorrow's demo, with Doris gnashing her teeth.

AndrewJRenko

Effects wrote: »

It was these kinds of ones that I'm thinking/talking about - mandatory cycle lanes with clearways for designated periods of the day.
https://goo.gl/maps/kPK9V7txYD92

railer201 wrote: »

No excuses - everyone on yer bike eh ! :rolleyes:

It's a bit disappointing to have to keep addressing the strawman argument, but once again - no-one is suggesting that cycling will be compulsory - just that we provide facilities so that everyone who chooses can cycle safely, and in doing so, will reduce traffic jams and public transport crushes.

meeeeh wrote: »

What is wrong with hi-vis clothing now. Does the hi-vis vest spoil coolness effect? I run in dark and walk dog sometimes, hi vis makes imense difference in safety on my road, costs about 3 euro and is not intrusive at all. It's beyond me why you wouldn't use it.

Well actually, yeah - it does spoil coolness. The coolness factor is one that I've long left behind, but it is an issue for some people. The RSA/Garda fetish for helmets and hi-vis is one of the reasons why we have more teenage girls driving themselves to school (as drivers, not passengers) than cycling to school - because we have made cycling fundamentally uncool by pretending that it is a dangerous activity, when it's not.

And there are other issues with hi-vis, including the lack of effectiveness (http://road.cc/content/news/95353-study-says-cyclists-should-make-themselves-seen-reflective-clothing-not-hi-vis), the attention that it takes away from having decent, proper, legal, working lights on a bike, the fact that in bright sunlight it tends to make the wearer invisible, the false sense of security that it gives the idiot cyclists all wrapped up in hi-vis and helmets but who still cycle like dicks, and more.

It even has it's own Twitter parody account; https://twitter.com/Flaminghobo1

If you want to continue the hi-vis discussion further, please take the discussion over to the hi-vis megathread in the cycling forum and please, please, please read the thread before you drag up the old chestnuts that have been addressed many times before.

railer201

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It was these kinds of ones that I'm thinking/talking about - mandatory cycle lanes with clearways for designated periods of the day.
https://goo.gl/maps/kPK9V7txYD92


It's a bit disappointing to have to keep addressing the strawman argument, but once again - no-one is suggesting that cycling will be compulsory - just that we provide facilities so that everyone who chooses can cycle safely, and in doing so, will reduce traffic jams and public transport crushes.


Well actually, yeah - it does spoil coolness. The coolness factor is one that I've long left behind, but it is an issue for some people. The RSA/Garda fetish for helmets and hi-vis is one of the reasons why we have more teenage girls driving themselves to school (as drivers, not passengers) than cycling to school - because we have made cycling fundamentally uncool by pretending that it is a dangerous activity, when it's not.

And there are other issues with hi-vis, including the lack of effectiveness (http://road.cc/content/news/95353-study-says-cyclists-should-make-themselves-seen-reflective-clothing-not-hi-vis), the attention that it takes away from having decent, proper, legal, working lights on a bike, the fact that in bright sunlight it tends to make the wearer invisible, the false sense of security that it gives the idiot cyclists all wrapped up in hi-vis and helmets but who still cycle like dicks, and more.

If you want to continue the hi-vis discussion further, please take the discussion over to the hi-vis megathread in the cycling forum and please, please, please read the thread before you drag up the old chestnuts that have been addressed many times before.

Keep being disappointed then - that doesn't bother me one bit and with your permission I'll keep wearing my hi-viz and helmet too - it's a pity to see a leading light of the cycling campaign and a prominent medical person with such a scant regard for safety in your YouTube video - no hi-viz or cycling helmet - but sure what would the RSA know ?

meeeeh

I have no interest in high viz discussion, if the argument is to encourage girls to be dumb. However I do have a question, why is research from Australia? Surely it should be from a country that has more comparable sunshine/cloudy conditions. For example, I would assume, in countries with a lot of fog hi viz would be more effective than reflective clothing while in countries with loads of sunshine I can well believe bright colours are redundant.

Osmosis Jones

I think it's great that people that have the ability to cycle to where they need to go do so, it's good for the environment and the streets. I wish more cyclists would obey the rules of the road, those who don't really make the others look bad, and anecdotally speaking quite a large portion don't. I've been hit twice and nearly hit numerous times by cyclists while crossing at a green light pedestrian crossing, and more often than not they behave as if I'm in the wrong.

Chuchote

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

I wish more cyclists would obey the rules of the road, those who don't really make the others look bad

When I learned logic, it didn't work like that.

meeeeh

People don't work on logic. We notice more the stuff that confirms our own biases.

ted1

railer201 wrote: »

Keep being disappointed then - that doesn't bother me one bit and with your permission I'll keep wearing my hi-viz and helmet too - it's a pity to see a leading light of the cycling campaign and a prominent medical person with such a scant regard for safety in your YouTube video - no hi-viz or cycling helmet - but sure what would the RSA know ?

Hi vis are only useful if drIvers put down their phones and use mirrors which they don't.

Studies have shown that you are more at risk wearing helmets.

Do some research before you critique people

meeeeh

ted1 wrote: »

Hi vis are only useful if drIvers put down their phones and use mirrors which they don't.

Studies have shown that you are more at risk wearing helmets.

Do some research before you critique people

Is that the ones that come in tandem with mountain bikes and downhill riding?

Samuel T. Cogley

The more and more I read of this thread, and I don't know why I keep doing so, the less and less I want to cycle - and it's got nothing to do with anyone other than other 'cyclists'.

Incidentally, wet today.

ted1

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The more and more I read of this thread, and I don't know why I keep doing so, the less and less I want to cycle - and it's got nothing to do with anyone other than other 'cyclists'.

Incidentally, wet today.

I left the house at 7:15 cycled 30km to the airport. Didn't get wet, left the airport at 4:50 drizzled for 5 minutes didn't get wet, stayed dry the rest if the journey

ted1

meeeeh wrote: »

Is that the ones that come in tandem with mountain bikes and downhill riding?

No because this thread is related to looking for road infrastructure. So downhill mountain biking is not relevant.

Samuel T. Cogley

ted1 wrote: »

I left the house at 7:15 cycled 30km to the airport. Didn't get wet, left the airport at 4:50 drizzled for 5 minutes didn't get wet, stayed dry the rest if the journey

On the way home in the car, very wet car. Didn't see many cyclists but then I wasn't using my mirrors (well until ahem) and was texting so maybe I missed them.

ted1

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

On the way home in the car, very wet car. Didn't see many cyclists but then I wasn't using my mirrors (well until ahem) and was texting so maybe I missed them.

You may say it's very wet in the car yet I was outside and stayed dry.

AndrewJRenko

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

I wish more cyclists would obey the rules of the road, those who don't really make the others look bad..

Do the motorists who kill and maim people on the road make other motorists look bad, or do you only apply this collective responsibility to cyclists?

Osmosis Jones wrote: »

anecdotally speaking quite a large portion don't..

Why bother with anecdote when you can have hard data - just 1 in 8 cyclists breaking red lights according to RSA;
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Crash%20Stats/RSA%20observational%20study%202015%20%E2%80%93%20Cyclist%20compliance%20with%20traffic%20lights.pdf

Probably less than the percentage of drivers that break red lights here;

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/video-only-cyclists-break-red-traffic-lights-in-ireland-right-take-a-look-at-this/

railer201 wrote: »

Keep being disappointed then - that doesn't bother me one bit and with your permission I'll keep wearing my hi-viz and helmet too - it's a pity to see a leading light of the cycling campaign and a prominent medical person with such a scant regard for safety in your YouTube video - no hi-viz or cycling helmet - but sure what would the RSA know ?

Yet another strawman - I didn't make any suggestion about you wearing a helmet and hi-vis. You make your own decisions about your own situation.

But when you start pontificating about what others should do, expect to be asked for evidence to support your ideas. There is no evidence that I've seen that supports mandatory helmets / hi-vis.

It's not a matter of 'what would the RSA know' - it is a matter of 'what does the overwhelming trend of evidence know'.

meeeeh wrote: »

I have no interest in high viz discussion, if the argument is to encourage girls to be dumb.

SO encouraging girls is dumb, eh? Addressing our growing obesity crisis is dumb? Addressing the traffic chaos every day that schools are open is dumb? [Imagine if every day in traffic was like this week]. Helping students to be more active and more alert learners is dumb?

I guess it's better to push for things that have no actual benefit (hi-vis) instead of achieving real, positive benefits.

meeeeh wrote: »

However I do have a question, why is research from Australia? Surely it should be from a country that has more comparable sunshine/cloudy conditions. For example, I would assume, in countries with a lot of fog hi viz would be more effective than reflective clothing while in countries with loads of sunshine I can well believe bright colours are redundant.

Why is the research from Australia? Because that's where the research was done.

So your next question is 'why don't have research done on hi-vis in Ireland and UK'? Probably because researchers focus on real issues.

Samuel T. Cogley

ted1 wrote: »

You may say it's very wet in the car yet I was outside and stayed dry.

Yes, funny that - I have feeling your definition of staying dry is somewhat different to that of the casual cyclist, much like many of the points raised by you and a few others.

Samuel T. Cogley

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But when you start pontificating about what others should do, expect to be asked for evidence to support your ideas. There is no evidence that I've seen that supports mandatory helmets / hi-vis.

It's extremely difficult to see some cyclists. I'm sure the serious stand out well enough but there are a core of people that make life more difficult for motorists and pedestrians with no real good reason. Granted there are pedestrians and motorists that do exactly the same.

meeeeh

@AndrewJRenko

Danish study in your own link found significant benefit and calls for wide use of hi viz clothing. You might want to read your own links.

railer201

ted1 wrote: »

Hi vis are only useful if drIvers put down their phones and use mirrors which they don't.

Studies have shown that you are more at risk wearing helmets.

Do some research before you critique people

I'm happy with the RSA advice and I'm sure they just didn't decide to advise without also reading the various studies on both hi-viz and helmets.

That being the case I will criticise those who have no respect for RSA advice, unless it can be shown the RSA have it all wrong.

ted1

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Yes, funny that - I have feeling your definition of staying dry is somewhat different to that of the casual cyclist, much like many of the points raised by you and a few others.

No, it's a global definition. Before I started cycling I also thought that you got wet the whole time , but I quickly learned that you don't.

ted1

The Met Eireann records confirmed it only rained at three yesterday. You'll see similar for today once the data uploads

http://www.met.ie/climate/daily-data.asp

AndrewJRenko

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It's extremely difficult to see some cyclists. I'm sure the serious stand out well enough but there are a core of people that make life more difficult for motorists and pedestrians with no real good reason. Granted there are pedestrians and motorists that do exactly the same.

Not sure I agree with the 'extremely difficult', but yes, it can be hard to see unlit cyclists at night. The solution to that is lights - as required by law. Decent, effective, charged working lights. You can get crap ones free from the RSA or for €1.50 in Dealz, or a basic set for €20 in your local bike shop, or pay up to €1500 for a light if you're into night mountain biking - so take your pick.

But don't grab a builder's bib and think that it fixes all your problems, because it doesn't.

Samuel T. Cogley

ted1 wrote: »

The Met Eireann records confirmed it only rained at three yesterday. You'll see similar for today once the data uploads

http://www.met.ie/climate/daily-data.asp

It's raining right now, I just confirmed with the Kilbarrack weather service. It was raining, more heavily at 8pm when I was heading home.

As funny as this conversation is, we can disagree to the cows come home on various issues, but even I know when it's raining.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

@AndrewJRenko

Danish study in your own link found significant benefit and calls for wide use of hi viz clothing. You might want to read your own links.

Throw us a bone, would ya? I've posted more than one link recently, so if you want to have a proper debate, give a reference.

railer201 wrote: »

I'm happy with the RSA advice and I'm sure they just didn't decide to advise without also reading the various studies on both hi-viz and helmets.

That's your personal choice of course. Your confidence in the RSA approach is quite touching.

railer201 wrote: »

That being the case I will criticise those who have no respect for RSA advice, unless it can be shown the RSA have it all wrong.

This research shows the lack of any impact of hi-vis in how drivers overtake cyclists.

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2013/11/26/overtaking-cyclists/

ted1

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It's raining right now, I just confirmed with the Kilbarrack weather service. It was raining, more heavily at 8pm when I was heading home.

As funny as this conversation is, we can disagree to the cows come home on various issues, but even I know when it's raining.

It might be raining now but it wasn't during commuting hours.

Samuel T. Cogley

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not sure I agree with the 'extremely difficult', but yes, it can be hard to see unlit cyclists at night. The solution to that is lights - as required by law. Decent, effective, charged working lights. You can get crap ones free from the RSA or for €1.50 in Dealz, or a basic set for €20 in your local bike shop, or pay up to €1500 for a light if you're into night mountain biking - so take your pick.

But don't grab a builder's bib and think that it fixes all your problems, because it doesn't.

I completely agree with you, but I'd rather see the hi-vis on than no hi-vis given just how many people refuse to cycle with lights on. The hi-vis is hardly a massive imposition.

Personally I'd be fine with no hi-vis as long as the cyclist has lights, perhaps some sort of double penalty, or reduced penalty for no lights if they have a hi-vis.

railer201

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

...........................
I guess it's better to push for things that have no actual benefit (hi-vis) instead of achieving real, positive benefits.

Really ???

Hi-viz has no actual benefit ???

Amazing !!!

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Throw us a bone, would ya? I've posted more than one link recently, so if you want to have a proper debate, give a

It's the one you posted to Australian research. Two articles down is Danish study.

http://road.cc/content/news/95353-study-says-cyclists-should-make-themselves-seen-reflective-clothing-not-hi-vis)

Samuel T. Cogley

ted1 wrote: »

It might be raining now but it wasn't during commuting hours.

It was during my and around 100 of my colleagues commuting hours.

AndrewJRenko

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I completely agree with you, but I'd rather see the hi-vis on than no hi-vis given just how many people refuse to cycle with lights on. The hi-vis is hardly a massive imposition.

Personally I'd be fine with no hi-vis as long as the cyclist has lights, perhaps some sort of double penalty, or reduced penalty for no lights if they have a hi-vis.

Why change? If you've no lights, issue a fine.

The kind of confusion you're experiencing is as a result of Gardai and RSA handing out hi-vis as if it is a solution. it's not - lights are the solution.

AndrewJRenko

railer201 wrote: »

Really ???

Hi-viz has no actual benefit ???

Amazing !!!

Really - amazing all right.

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2013/11/2...king-cyclists/

ted1

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I completely agree with you, but I'd rather see the hi-vis on than no hi-vis given just how many people refuse to cycle with lights on. The hi-vis is hardly a massive imposition.

Personally I'd be fine with no hi-vis as long as the cyclist has lights, perhaps some sort of double penalty, or reduced penalty for no lights if they have a hi-vis.

What exactly has hi vis got to do with providing decent infrastructure?

Samuel T. Cogley

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why change? If you've no lights, issue a fine.

The kind of confusion you're experiencing is as a result of Gardai and RSA handing out hi-vis as if it is a solution. it's not - lights are the solution.

I have to say I can't disagree. I'm also aware and say it for the sake of trying to concede some balance. The guards do enforce cycling rules.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

It's the one you posted to Australian research. Two articles down is Danish study.

http://road.cc/content/news/95353-study-says-cyclists-should-make-themselves-seen-reflective-clothing-not-hi-vis)

As I suggested, it's been well discussed in the mega-thread if you'd like to read up over there;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101432706&postcount=912
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101436251&postcount=931

Try reading some of the comments on the road.cc article too, including this one;

"The project was funded by TrygFonden who was also responsible for the design, production and distribution of jackets to the participants. The authors would like to take the opportunity to thank TrygFonden for the funding of and collaboration in this project."

Samuel T. Cogley

ted1 wrote: »

What exactly has hi vis got to do with providing decent infrastructure?

The contention my many is what we need is off road cycle tracks, I actually agree to some degree. They're nice and even I like using them. However when cyclists are on the road I treat them with the same respect, in fact a bit more as they are more vulnerable, than other road users.

My suggestion is we have roads, we all use them, let's try and make each others lives as easy as humanly possible. It's not going to be possible to segregate us completely.

ted1

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The contention my many is what we need is off road cycle tracks, I actually agree to some degree. They're nice and even I like using them. However when cyclists are on the road I treat them with the same respect, in fact a bit more as they are more vulnerable, than other road users.

My suggestion is we have roads, we all use them, let's try and make each others lives as easy as humanly possible. It's not going to be possible to segregate us completely.

Yet cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen and the safest cities for cyclists and they don't wear hi vis or helmets.

railer201

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Really - amazing all right.

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2013/11/2...king-cyclists/

That's fine - we'll leave it right there - you've stated that 'hi-viz has no actual benefit'.

And you're part of a cycling campaign - presumably to do with safe cycling ?

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

As I suggested, it's been well discussed in the mega-thread if you'd like to read up over there;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101432706&postcount=912
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101436251&postcount=931

Try reading some of the comments on the road.cc article too, including this one;

"The project was funded by TrygFonden who was also responsible for the design, production and distribution of jackets to the participants. The authors would like to take the opportunity to thank TrygFonden for the funding of and collaboration in this project."

I have no intention to reading thst thread. If I wanted I could find plenty of long threads that will prove 100% how damaging the vaccine is and yet the medical scientists still recommend it. But yes probably all the road safety and work safety organizations are wrong too and people on a thread on interweb are right.

As for the Australian study, I bet it was done in weather that is a lot less overcast and a lot sunnier than Ireland and Bath study states they were looking how close to the cyclists cars overtook and did not research if there is better visibility in dark.

AndrewJRenko

railer201 wrote: »

That's fine - we'll leave it right there - you've stated that 'hi-viz has no actual benefit'.

It's not a matter of what I say or don't say - it's what the research says;

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2013/11/26/overtaking-cyclists/

It's also not a question of 'any actual benefit' - wrapping every cyclist in bubble wrap could well have a benefit in reducing injuries, but it is a dumb idea. Reducing every car to walking speed and putting a man with a red flag in front could well have a benefit in reducing injuries, but it is a dumb idea.

There is no evidence that the kind of money that the RSA have spend in trying to wrap every man/woman/child in the country in hi-vis as soon as they step outside their door has any actual benefit.

The number of deaths of cyclists and pedestrians during hours of darkness is quite small. The numbers of deaths where hi-vis would have helped is smaller again.

What problem are you actually trying to fix here?

Samuel T. Cogley

ted1 wrote: »

Yet cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen and the safest cities for cyclists and they don't wear hi vis or helmets.

Ah ted, you can't even be convinced rain is wet.

Dublin and Ireland has it's own set of issues. It's not Amsterdam or Copenhagen. I agree let's look at the ideal model and take what we can from them, until then try respect each other on the roads we have. That includes motorists who should have their lights on.

AndrewJRenko

meeeeh wrote: »

I have no intention to reading thst thread. If I wanted I could find plenty of long threads that will prove 100% how damaging the vaccine is and yet the medical scientists still recommend it. But yes probably all the road safety and work safety organizations are wrong too and people on a thread on interweb are right.

I'm not talking about 'the interweb'. I'm talking about here on boards.ie. You won't find threads here on boards.ie proving vaccine conspiracies because anyone who comes out with that nonsense gets ripped apart with evidence.

The same happens for hi-vis - as you well know - and that's why you're so desperate to avoid the evidence.

meeeeh wrote: »

As for the Australian study, I bet it was done in weather that is a lot less overcast and a lot sunnier than Ireland and Bath study states they were looking how close to the cyclists cars overtook and did not research if there is better visibility in dark.

Here's a mad idea - let's not 'bet' about what's in the research. Let's read it and then discuss it.

Samuel T. Cogley

Taking Amsterdam though I find this:

http://www.iamsterdam.com/en/visiting/plan-your-trip/getting-around/cycling

Looks amazing - and frankly I can see why you'd want the same for Dublin. Given the way their infrastructure seems to work though I go back to my point that perhaps cyclist would need to slow down too?

Samuel T. Cogley

I think we could all do with removing the hyperbole and linking the dodgy studies tbh.

A bit of common sense would go along way.

Samuel T. Cogley

Andrew - out of interest what your thoughts on the 30KPH limit and if intorduced should cyclists have to adhere to it too?

Genuine question.

meeeeh

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm not talking about 'the interweb'. I'm talking about here on boards.ie. You won't find threads here on boards.ie proving vaccine conspiracies because anyone who comes out with that nonsense gets ripped apart with evidence.

The same happens for hi-vis - as you well know - and that's why you're so desperate to avoid the evidence.

No, it's because I really don't care enough to read 500 pages of what people with agenda want to say.

Btw where did you get the idea that small number of people die in darkness.
http://www.rsa.ie/en/Utility/News/2014/Almost-Half-of-Pedestrian-and-Cyclist-Fatalitites-Occured-During-The-Hours-of-Darkness/

ted1

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Andrew - out of interest what your thoughts on the 30KPH limit and if intorduced should cyclists have to adhere to it too?

Genuine question.

No they shouldn't, they don't carry anywhere near the same inertia, momentum etc as cars. A rider hitting someone at 30kmh will bounce off and injury themselves a car will kill the person.

railer201

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem to have missed some context from my post, so I'll try it again and see if you manage to pick it up properly this time.



Are you proposing wrapping people in bubble wrap and putting people walking with red flags in front of cars now?

I'm kind of shocked now to be honest.

We both know what's going on here. You've run out of any facts or evidence, so you're left struggling to find things to argue with by picking quotes out of context. If that's all you have to argue with, it's not really worth bothering, is it?

You're correct I took the analogies out of context, so post deleted. We'll agree to disagree for tonight.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

railer201 wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's not a matter of what I say or don't say - it's what the research says;

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/2013/11/2...king-cyclists/

It's also not a question of 'any actual benefit' - wrapping every cyclist in bubble wrap could well have a benefit in reducing injuries, but it is a dumb idea. Reducing every car to walking speed and putting a man with a red flag in front could well have a benefit in reducing injuries, but it is a dumb idea.

There is no evidence that the kind of money that the RSA have spend in trying to wrap every man/woman/child in the country in hi-vis as soon as they step outside their door has any actual benefit.

The number of deaths of cyclists and pedestrians during hours of darkness is quite small. The numbers of deaths where hi-vis would have helped is smaller again.

What problem are you actually trying to fix here?
Safety is a dumb idea - really ???

I'm kind of shocked now to be honest.

Actually what he said was "wrapping every cyclist in bubble wrap" and "Reducing every car to walking speed and putting a man with a red flag in front" are dumb ideas, because they are dumb ideas.

Samuel T. Cogley

ted1 wrote: »

No they shouldn't, they don't carry anywhere near the same inertia, momentum etc as cars. A rider hitting someone at 30kmh will bounce off and injury themselves a car will kill the person.

Neither of those things happen in the majority of cases.

If you or I rugby tackle rugby the average height and weight young woman to the ground, likelihood is we're gonna hurt them. That's without the added speed an issues with a push bike.

It's positions like yours that make it very hard to take some cyclists seriously.