strange anti-cycling posters up in Howth

magicbastarder

i think that was a joke about elephant's ears rather than being about earphones.

07Lapierre

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think that was a joke about elephant's ears rather than being about earphones.

Oh! i'll go back to sleep so.

07Lapierre

Deedsie wrote: »

You are an experienced advanced cyclists. There is a big difference between you wearing headphones when cycling to a beginner cyclist and that should be clarified in the strongest terms.

Good point. In the cycling world i'm a "Fred" or a "MAMIL"
to non-cyclists (in Howth) i'm an elephant in lycra on a bike!

Lusk_Doyle

Deedsie wrote: »

You are an experienced advanced cyclists. There is a big difference between you wearing headphones when cycling to a beginner cyclist and that should be clarified in the strongest terms.

There's nothing "advanced" about his cycling!

All My Stars Aligned

I'm just curious to hear your arguments against the idea of introducing & enforcing the mandatory passing distance as previously talked about but making cycling two abreast illegal.

(runs for cover)

68 lost souls

All My Stars Aligned wrote: »

I'm just curious to hear your arguments against the idea of introducing & enforcing the mandatory passing distance as previously talked about but making cycling two abreast illegal.

(runs for cover)

All My Stars Aligned

No not trolling. Was put to me by somebody I work with while discussing cycling today.

Initially I dismissed it but after some thought it makes some sense.

Oh, and I am a cyclist although not very often in groups.

Fighting Tao

68 lost souls wrote: »

That looks very like the posters that were put up. Angry motorists waving their fist at an innocent party.

magicbastarder

All My Stars Aligned wrote: »

Initially I dismissed it but after some thought it makes some sense.

To what - and whose - benefit?

Chuchote

68 lost souls wrote: »

Missed him by a whisker

All My Stars Aligned

magicbastarder wrote: »

To what - and whose - benefit?

Well, the cyclists to start with.

magicbastarder

Would you ban cyclists from cycling in the middle of the road - i.e. the position the outer cyclist would often take if cycling two abreast?

RayCun

All My Stars Aligned wrote: »

I'm just curious to hear your arguments against the idea of introducing & enforcing the mandatory passing distance as previously talked about but making cycling two abreast illegal.

(runs for cover)

There's an image about a page back that explains it well

AndrewJRenko

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think that was a joke about elephant's ears rather than being about earphones.

07Lapierre wrote: »

I wear earbuds and listen to music on my commute. I'm not a menace to anyone and I fail to see how it's a "recipe for disaster"!

When I want to turn, I LOOK over my shoulder.
I can still hear ambient noises (traffic, wind etc.)
And to keep on topic, even the posters didn't mention earbuds as a problem.

I was just doing the standard Pavlovian drooling Mr Angry response to any mention of cyclists of finding something to whinge about.

Chuchote

All My Stars Aligned wrote: »

I'm just curious to hear your arguments against the idea of introducing & enforcing the mandatory passing distance as previously talked about but making cycling two abreast illegal.

(runs for cover)

You might be interested in this photo of the mat used by Edinburgh police in their close pass drive - drivers who pass cyclists too close are instructed to drive on to it and shown exactly how closely they passed a cyclist. When you get out and look at it, it's a lot more scary than when you whizz by:

http://road.cc/content/news/221478-police-scotland-launch-operation-close-pass-edinburgh






I'm sure it's often been explained on this thread, but I'll say it again. If club cyclists string out in a long single file, then drivers can't pass them safely at any time, because the passing distance - when the driver will be across the line - is too long to guarantee no oncoming car will appear.

rubadub

All My Stars Aligned wrote: »

I'm just curious to hear your arguments against the idea of introducing & enforcing the mandatory passing distance as previously talked about but making cycling two abreast illegal.

Why are you splitting the 2 up? I am genuinely unaware of your agenda. I am totally against 100% enforcement of the passing distance proposal, it would be madness, like 100% enforcement of our "jaywalking laws". Several gardai have given me "a nod of approval" as I have illegally broken lights and cycled on footpaths before, with good sensible reason, though I am certain some jobsworth gobsh ites would be appalled at such conduct from our boys in blue.

I am similarly against making cycling 2 abreast illegal in all cases. I am honestly not sure if you expected most to think this way.

All My Stars Aligned wrote: »

Oh, and I am a cyclist although not very often in groups.

If you are overtaking, or being overtaken then you are involved with "cycling 2 abreast", or have you a proposed legal definition you want to share?

All My Stars Aligned

No agenda, just something that was said to me and I thought it was an interesting idea.

I take the point about single file groups being far more stretched out thus making overtaking more dangerous. Hadn't thought about that.

As for rubadub's breaking red lights and cycling on footpaths, I guess it's ok then for cars to break light when it suits them too

At the end of the day it's about trying to make the roads as safe as possible for all users and I think showing consideration to others is a good starting point. There are dicks on foot, in cars and on bikes, such is life. Maybe we need just not react to them if possible.

amcalester

All My Stars Aligned wrote: »

No agenda, just something that was said to me and I thought it was an interesting idea.

I take the point about single file groups being far more stretched out thus making overtaking more dangerous. Hadn't thought about that.

As for rubadub's breaking red lights and cycling on footpaths, I guess it's ok then for cars to break light when it suits them too

At the end of the day it's about trying to make the roads as safe as possible for all users and I think showing consideration to others is a good starting point. There are dicks on foot, in cars and on bikes, such is life. Maybe we need just not react to them if possible.

Many motorists, just like many cyclists, routinely break red lights when it suits them.

More motorists would probably brake the lights too except that when one car stops the cars following are forced to stop too.

Edited: No offense to you but when people say they want to make the roads as safe as possible it usually means making it easier and faster for motorists to get from A to B while ignoring that there are many other road users.

CramCycle

All My Stars Aligned wrote: »

I'm just curious to hear your arguments against the idea of introducing & enforcing the mandatory passing distance as previously talked about but making cycling two abreast illegal.

(runs for cover)

MOD VOICE: They are two separate issues / ideas. Do not confuse or mix the issues as people may misinterpret your posts as trolling. To everyone else, the next person to call someone a troll outright, instead of simply reporting the post, will find themselves carded and banned from the thread.

buffalo

All My Stars Aligned wrote: »

At the end of the day it's about trying to make the roads as safe as possible for all users and I think showing consideration to others is a good starting point.

Going by the statistics for deaths and serious injuries on the roads, it's clear that motorised vehicles are the primary cause. Surely a good starting point for making the 'roads as safe as possible' wouldn't be a vague undefinable idea of 'consideration', but strictly enforcing current rules for motor vehicles?

magicbastarder

All My Stars Aligned wrote: »

At the end of the day it's about trying to make the roads as safe as possible for all users and I think showing consideration to others is a good starting point.

the thing is, you'll find it'll be a common conviction that such a law would make life *less* safe for cyclists.

Lusk_Doyle

buffalo wrote: »

Going by the statistics for deaths and serious injuries on the roads, it's clear that motorised vehicles are the primary cause. Surely a good starting point for making the 'roads as safe as possible' wouldn't be a vague undefinable idea of 'consideration', but strictly enforcing current rules for motor vehicles?

A motorised vehicle can't be the primary cause a death or serious injury. It is the operation of the vehicle in a particular manner by the driver that is.

Chuchote

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

A motorised vehicle can't be the primary cause a death or serious injury. It is the operation of the vehicle in a particular manner by the driver that is.

99% true. But I've had brakes fail going downhill on the way into town. Luckily I'd taken a mend-your-car course and one of the lessons had been how to control your car with gears only. Hairy moment, though, and if I hadn't, could have been really dangerous.

A friend of a friend had the gear stick drop out of his car on the way to psychoanalysis. Very Freudian :eek:

buffalo

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

A motorised vehicle can't be the primary cause a death or serious injury. It is the operation of the vehicle in a particular manner by the driver that is.

Guns don't kill people, people do?

07Lapierre

Chuchote wrote: »

99% true. But I've had brakes fail going downhill on the way into town. Luckily I'd taken a mend-your-car course and one of the lessons had been how to control your car with gears only. Hairy moment, though, and if I hadn't, could have been really dangerous.

A friend of a friend had the gear stick drop out of his car on the way to psychoanalysis. Very Freudian :eek:

Really? what kind of car was that? how old was the car?

ThisRegard

buffalo wrote: »

Guns don't kill people, people do?

No, rappers do.

Chuchote

07Lapierre wrote: »

Really? what kind of car was that? how old was the car?

The person who told me about it (back in the 1980s) was laughing too much to name the type of car.

Alek

Guns don't kill people, people do?

Mostly its the bullets.

meeeeh

Chuchote wrote: »

99% true. But I've had brakes fail going downhill on the way into town. Luckily I'd taken a mend-your-car course and one of the lessons had been how to control your car with gears only. Hairy moment, though, and if I hadn't, could have been really dangerous.

A friend of a friend had the gear stick drop out of his car on the way to psychoanalysis. Very Freudian :eek:

That is lack of maintenance and users fault. Breaks don't just fail. Part of being responsible driver is also to maintain your car up to standard.

Chuchote

meeeeh wrote: »

That is lack of maintenance and users fault. Breaks don't just fail. Part of being responsible driver is also to maintain your car up to standard.

Sorry, kid, but the car was recently back from the menders, where the brakes had been checked as normal. Unmainsplain, please.