strange anti-cycling posters up in Howth

07Lapierre

Chuchote wrote: »

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

The 80's! ah here... brakes don't fail nowadays. People just ignore the "Brake pads due" warning light and keep driving until the caliper falls off!

meeeeh

Well then they didn't check the brakes properly. But it's still a human error.

Btw I am not a man and frankly I would expect responsible driver to maintain their tyres and brakes properly regardless of gender.

triggermortis

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.

Not always...
Similar thing happened to my brothers (very 80's) Cortina. He'd had a smash and hit a motorway central barrier, and after getting the car back from being repaired, a few months later we were in Newquay seconds in front of some carnival procession. A cop was waving at us to hurry up, but we couldn't move as he had the gear lever in his hand!
During the initial crash, he'd hit the lever with his knee and stripped the plastic thread. The garage didn't replace this part and he only found it a few months later.
Wasn't an unusual sight to see that car being pushed instead of driven..

magicbastarder

meeeeh wrote: »

Btw I am not a man and frankly I would expect responsible driver to maintain their tyres and brakes properly regardless of gender.

sounds like chucote *had* done what you would expect a responsible driver to do. unless you're suggesting that all drivers should be able to maintain the brakes themselves?

rubadub

rubadub wrote: »

Several gardai have given me "a nod of approval" as I have illegally broken lights and cycled on footpaths before, with good sensible reason

All My Stars Aligned wrote: »

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

Yes, I have seen gardai give a wave of approval/thanks when cars broke red lights too, again with good reason. I purposely drove through a red light on during my driving test and passed.

I love Sean nos

Chuchote wrote: »

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.

Is that leftside bracket supposed to be the kerb or is it further on the left, where the mat ends?

Moflojo

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Is that leftside bracket supposed to be the kerb or is it further on the left, where the mat ends?

The bracket shows the space that the cyclist is/should be in, which is around 1.5 metres from the kerb. You can see a kerb graphic to the extreme left of the mat, and if you look in the bottom left corner you can see a graphic depicting a drain grill. I assume that as part of the 'education' process the police officer tells the driver that a cyclist must stay out from the kerb to avoid obstacles such as drains, debris etc.

I love Sean nos

Moflojo wrote: »

The bracket shows the space that the cyclist is/should be in, which is around 1.5 metres from the kerb. You can see a kerb graphic to the extreme left of the mat, and if you look in the bottom left corner you can see a graphic depicting a drain grill. I assume that as part of the 'education' process the police officer tells the driver that a cyclist must stay out from the kerb to avoid obstacles such as drains, debris etc.

That seems reasonable, as long as it's made clear that the folks on the bikes are not restricted to that area at all times.

Mercian Pro

I love Sean nos wrote: »

Is that leftside bracket supposed to be the kerb or is it further on the left, where the mat ends?

This is the "original" mat from West Midland Police.

masculinist

Chuchote wrote: »

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.

That clearance distance is mad impractical on Irish roads which are designed for horses and carts. Any such standard here would slow many roads down to a halt. That clearance standard seems to be assuming that the cyclist is going to have a heart attack and fall over sideways - onto the dangerous side.

Fighting Tao

masculinist wrote: »

That clearance distance is mad impractical on Irish roads which are designed for horses and carts. Any such standard here would slow many roads down to a halt. That clearance standard seems to be assuming that the cyclist is going to have a heart attack and fall over sideways - onto the dangerous side.

Are Scottish roads very different to Irish roads?

masculinist

Fighting Tao wrote: »

Are Scottish roads very different to Irish roads?

I can think of loads of roads where if you took that sort of clearance , you'd be dangerously placed on the wrong side of the road facing into oncoming traffic.

Fighting Tao

masculinist wrote: »

I can think of loads of roads where if you took that sort of clearance , you'd be dangerously placed on the wrong side of the road facing into oncoming traffic.

From driving in Scotland it is the exact same over there. Also, you should not pass unless it's safe to do so.

Daroxtar

I think drivers should be made stand on the mat less than a meter from the edge with their back to the car while the car is driven past them at the speed they were doing. The car should blast the horn just as it reaches them just for good measure.

Idleater

masculinist wrote: »

I can think of loads of roads where if you took that sort of clearance , you'd be dangerously placed on the wrong side of the road facing into oncoming traffic.

Does not compute.

Why would someone choose to dangerously place their car on the wrong side of the road? That would de-facto mean the manoeuvre was dangerous and shouldn't be attempted.

Oncoming traffic? Why would a manoeuvre be attempted in the first place?

The picture clearly shows that the car has to go onto the other side of the road regardless of the position within the { } the cyclist is.




I randomly dropped the google street view character into the Scottish wilderness.

https://goo.gl/maps/pt9Mers4UqJ2

AndrewJRenko

masculinist wrote: »

I can think of loads of roads where if you took that sort of clearance , you'd be dangerously placed on the wrong side of the road facing into oncoming traffic.

Isn't that how most overtakes work? You cross the centre line temporarily when it is safe to do so.

Fighting Tao

Daroxtar wrote: »

I think drivers should be made stand on the mat less than a meter from the edge with their back to the car while the car is driven past them at the speed they were doing. The car should blast the horn just as it reaches them just for good measure.

magicbastarder

Mercian Pro wrote: »

This is the "original" mat from West Midland Police.

those mats are extremely impractical. i can hardly ask a garda to stand beside me all the time while i'm cycling, and how am i supposed to cycle on the mat but somehow take it with me?

Fighting Tao

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Isn't that how most overtakes work? You cross the centre line temporarily when it is safe to do so.

No! You got it all wrong. You pass within millimetres of bikes, cars etc and if you cross the centre line your tyres blow up.

rubadub

masculinist wrote: »

I can think of loads of roads where if you took that sort of clearance , you'd be dangerously placed on the wrong side of the road facing into oncoming traffic.

exactly, you are totally correct, there are loads of roads where it would be extremely dangerous to do so, yet unfortunately many drivers are under the impression they should always be able to pass cyclists on almost all roads with oncoming traffic.

I have been in a taxi and heard a driver admit with glee that he engages in "punishment passes"

masculinist

Fighting Tao wrote: »

From driving in Scotland it is the exact same over there. Also, you should not pass unless it's safe to do so.

Idleater wrote: »

Does not compute.

Why would someone choose to dangerously place their car on the wrong side of the road? That would de-facto mean the manoeuvre was dangerous and shouldn't be attempted.

Oncoming traffic? Why would a manoeuvre be attempted in the first place?

The picture clearly shows that the car has to go onto the other side of the road regardless of the position within the { } the cyclist is.




I randomly dropped the google street view character into the Scottish wilderness.

https://goo.gl/maps/pt9Mers4UqJ2

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Isn't that how most overtakes work? You cross the centre line temporarily when it is safe to do so.

rubadub wrote: »

exactly, you are totally correct, there are loads of roads where it would be extremely dangerous to do so, yet unfortunately many drivers are under the impression they should always be able to pass cyclists on almost all roads with oncoming traffic.

I have been in a taxi and heard a driver admit with glee that he engages in "punishment passes"

10 Minutes ago I drove along a road in Dublin on my proper left hand side of the median line. There were no cyclists on my side of the road going in my direction. That didnt stop a cyclist getting too close to my car though according to the mat distance pictured a few posts back. A cyclist going in the opposite direction and on the other side of the median line passed with clearance of less than 6 inches. He was cycling two abreast and he was the one edging the median line. Was I supposed to drive into the gutter ? Distance is irrelevant. Its speed thats important in my view. Of course I slowed down as he passed oblivious to me. Common sense. The UK is a nanny state. We can do without that.

I love Sean nos

masculinist wrote: »

10 Minutes ago I drove along a road in Dublin on my proper left hand side of the median line. There were no cyclists on my side of the road going in my direction. That didnt stop a cyclist getting too close to my car though according to the mat distance pictured a few posts back. A cyclist going in the opposite direction and on the other side of the median line passed with clearance of less than 6 inches. He was cycling two abreast and he was the one edging the median line. Was I supposed to drive into the gutter ? Distance is irrelevant. Its speed thats important in my view. Of course I slowed down as he passed oblivious to me. Common sense. The UK is a nanny state. We can do without that.

Fighting Tao

I love Sean nos wrote: »

You beat me to it. I was just going to post that as unless masculinist is a mind reader he has no way of knowing if the cyclist was obvious or not. I'd be quite sure that the cyclist saw him as they were going opposite directions and didn't react because masculinist was not endangering his life.

masculinist

Fighting Tao wrote: »

You beat me to it. I was just going to post that as unless masculinist is a mind reader he has no way of knowing if the cyclist was obvious or not. I'd be quite sure that the cyclist saw him as they were going opposite directions and didn't react because masculinist was not endangering his life.

Theres a lot of cognitive dissonance going on here. Are you approving of a cyclist riding the median line of a road ?

rubadub

masculinist wrote: »

according to the mat distance pictured a few posts back. A cyclist going in the opposite direction and on the other side of the median line passed with clearance of less than 6 inches.

looking at the mat distance you mention yourself, if reduced from 1.5m to 0.15m (6 inches) to the centre of the bike it would appear that the cyclist would have hit you. Perhaps you are exaggerating though... Or coming up with another description of clearance which is incomparable.

Fighting Tao

masculinist wrote: »

Theres a lot of cognitive dissonance going on here. Are you approving of a cyclist riding the median line of a road ?

I think the cognitive dissonance is on your part rather than mine as it's you that has two different stories going on. First he was the other "other side of the median line" and now he's "riding the median line". I only went by what you said.

I do think that his lack of reaction would be due to you being on the correct side of the road, you slowed down and that he saw you. Therefore it's a non-issue.

fat bloke

I think you have to differentiate between oncoming traffic and traffic passing from behind. As a cyclist I can do something about oncoming traffic and the distance at which we pass each other. I can stride the central line and play chicken if I am somehow deranged, but in reality I'll position myself so that the distance between us is comfortable for me and neither threatening nor dangerous. I can't expect you as a car driver on your side of the road to adjust your position to suit me - a road user on my (opposite) side of the road.

But you overtaking me from behind is a whole other thing - that's the situation to which the 1.5metres pertains (imo). I can't see you, I can't make any judgement as to how close you are until it's too late. I only really know after the fact, that you were too close. Plus, we are now sharing a lane, and I'm in front of you, so I'm entitled to my space and you're obliged to pass me with care and attention and in a manner that does not endanger me - i.e. give me ca 1.5 m space when the way is clear for you to overtake.

I don't think anyone is saying you have to drive into your nearside ditch to give oncoming cyclists acres of space. That should be just a common sense sharing of the road. And if there's a central white line and you have a car width to yourself, then any vehicle coming towards you has sufficient space to occupy as they see fit without hindering you in any way.

AndrewJRenko

masculinist wrote: »

10 Minutes ago I drove along a road in Dublin on my proper left hand side of the median line. There were no cyclists on my side of the road going in my direction. That didnt stop a cyclist getting too close to my car though according to the mat distance pictured a few posts back. A cyclist going in the opposite direction and on the other side of the median line passed with clearance of less than 6 inches. He was cycling two abreast and he was the one edging the median line. Was I supposed to drive into the gutter ? Distance is irrelevant. Its speed thats important in my view. Of course I slowed down as he passed oblivious to me. Common sense. The UK is a nanny state. We can do without that.

You know what? I don't believe you.

This scenario just seems highly unlikely and improbable. Yes, it could possibly happen. Yes, given the numbers on the roads, it probably does happen occasionally. But I don't believe that it happened to you tonight.

masculinist

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You know what? I don't believe you.
.

Look. It happened. As we passed one another, I had a mad idea that I wished I was holding my phone to take a photo of the big grin on the cyclists face but I knew that would be illegal and dangerous. I'll have to get a dashcam one of these days.
Now as to being called a liar, an honest response to that would likely break the charter which I cant be arsed to read. So I'm out and unsubscribing from this thread.

AndrewJRenko

masculinist wrote: »

Look. It happened. As we passed one another,

"With clearance of less than 6 inches"?